Beale on Broader Evangelicalism
” …let’s just zero in on the most significant problem with Dr. Beale’s taxonomy—that there are only two groups in our day, Fundamentalism and Broad Evangelicalism” - Doran
- 108 views
Here in Atlanta, we have Stone Mountain. At the top, you can make your way down the curved top, which gets steeper and steeper, until before long you are going to slip and tumble down past the carved figures of Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis to your death. They now have a fence installed to prevent people from going too far. Good idea. The slippery slope argument is valid and invalid at the same time. There are safe steps you can take towards the edge that do not result in catastrophe. Not all steps down the slope are slippery. But there are also steps that are slippery and will lead to disaster…the problem is that you don’t know where that line is. So you put up a fence. Hopefully you put the fence in a sensible place.
[WallyMorris]I am well aware of what type of argument it is. That’s why I gave the illustration. Someone may argue philosophical and logical principle as much as they want, but our dog still tries to go to the road, one small step at a time.
This reminds me of a sermon illustration I heard in the last IFB church I attended. The preacher was waxing eloquent on why women shouldn’t wear pants, why teens shouldn’t listen to CCM, etc. and as a support he used the illustration of a carriage driver for the queen of England. The illustration went something like …
“Back when the queen of England regularly rode in carriages, she had a carriage driver who was world renown for how safely he drove her carriage. When asked about how he acquired his reputation the carriage driver responded, “When I’m driving the queen’s carriage and going around a corner of a steep embankment, I make sure I steer the carriage as far away from the embankment as I can. I don’t steer in the middle of the road, because that is too close to the embankment.”
“Church, the reason women shouldn’t wear pants is that they should want to be as far away from the world’s immodest dress standards as they can be. Wearing pants is like steering the queen’s carriage in the middle of the road. If women begin wearing pants, pretty soon your church will be full of women who are wearing miniskirts and halter tops. The same thing is true with allowing your teens to listen to Steve Green, Amy Grant, and Sandi Patti. If you allow them to steer their music carriage in the middle of the road, they will soon be listening to rock and roll music. So, church, remember, always steer your carriage as far away from the embankment of the world as possible. Amen!”
Someone may argue philosophical and logical principle as much as they want, but our dog still tries to go to the road, one small step at a time.
While this analogy works to a point, there is a huge difference between a dog that knows it shouldn’t go beyond the bounds of your yard because those are the rules and a dog that runs out of the yard for a good reason (chasing an intruder, for example). I had a dog that knew immediately the boundaries of our yard but who, in his zeal, overran the boundaries and then wouldn’t come back because he knew I was upset that he overran the perimeter.
Also, Christians tend to reason at much higher levels than dogs do.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jeff Straub]…
Where is BJU on the continuum? With BJ’s participation in Samaritan’s Purse Christmas boxes, one wonders just how far things may go. Is there anything wrong with sending Christmas boxes to kids? Of course not. Is there anything wrong with aligning with Franklin Graham’s work? Well, is this one example of a larger course shift in Greenville? Time will tell.
…
We’re all on a continuum. My friend Jeff (we met in the weight room/boiler room at BJ way back when in the 70s) has a point. BJ cooperating with Samaritan’s Purse and others reflects some change of philosophy or better, a more nuanced and more biblical understanding of separation that doesn’t call for separation from brothers in Christ like Franklin Graham. I don’t have time to track down everyone Graham works with or receives support from. I’m sure I can find some things I’d disagree with. From what I know of him, he is clear on the gospel and does not work in gospel endeavors with unbelievers. There’s a time for separation. There’s also a time for co-belligerency. I think Graham is on the right side, a friend of God and a friend of God’s people. I find no more reason to separate from him than from Dave Doran, or from Don for that matter (although the sentiment might not be mutual). Yes, BJU has changed and for that I thank God.
Anecdotally, I almost didn’t graduate from BJ because I was planning to go to an IFB seminary that was not part of the BJ orbit. I did attend the seminary in question and once BJ was aware (with transcript request) my alumni association dues were refunded and I received letters about how I had betrayed the university. I’m glad those days are over. Funny thing, a few years later the university and the seminary became best buds. After over 40 years of ministry, and even more aware that my years are counted, I’m content to serve the Lord, happily married, seeing and investing in my grandkids, and want to finish well. Until that time, I plan to enjoy as wide a fellowship as the Word of God allows.
[T Howard]Wally, that’s another example of the slippery slope fallacy. If IFB institution does X that will necessarily lead to Y.
To those familiar with logic, it’s of course true that X will not necessarily lead to Y. But if X can lead to Y, through say, some combination of steps R, S, T, U, V, and W, it’s not wrong to start wondering where things are going if changes have led to X, R, U, and W now being true. As Andy mentioned in his example, not all steps are slippery, and not all steps in the direction of Y will necessary lead there, but at some point, the slippery slope becomes impossible to avoid. The existence of the slippery slope fallacy does not mean that slippery slopes never exist, and thus there is no need to watch for them.
We all draw lines (or fences) at some point, and we argue over where those are or should be when the Bible is not clear. But I think any true Christian realizes that there is a line between righteousness and unrighteousness, and that sometimes getting from one to the other is a process or degrees or steps rather than one big leap. Where that is true, it is certain we there will be disagreement on where the fence should be, but hopefully not in the need to have one.
In a strict logical sense, if it’s true that fellowship with unbelievers is disobedient, and fellowship with disobedient brothers is also disobedient, then all separation over fellowship is the same, no matter how many steps there are between you and the unbelievers. Practically, however, it’s not that clean, and due to lack of knowledge and lack of biblical specificity in some applications, or even lack of time or resources in tracking down everyone’s associations, there will rarely be a clean line that all will agree on that tells us when fellowship is right or disobedient.
That’s why there should be charity in our evaluations of these associations, and we should give our own more scrutiny than those of others. Nonetheless, if we have concerns over where others are going, being charitable with them does not mean ignoring it or not mentioning it to them. It’s just that we have to be as biblical as we can in working through the issues.
Dave Barnhart
It often comes down to subjective opinion.
Why does this always come down to “secondary separation” issue? Why can’t we talk about wisdom issues? Why do we start with “what’s wrong with X?” Shouldn’t we argue “what’s right with X?”
Why don’t we support a Catholic charity? Is it because of what they actually do? Or is it because of who is doing it?
Then the question becomes “what is being done and why?” Why is X doing this?
In the case of BJ, are these deliberate actions intended to say or demonstrate something? Are they poor choices made without careful consideration? Are they choices someone made who is unaware of larger issues?
Is this really just subjective opinion?
Jeff Straub
We can applaud that, but until they can clarify all their entanglements, I see no advantage in allying myself with them.
Don,
Are YOU aware of all of your “entanglements”, so to speak? If not, how am I supposed to pass judgment and actually practice separation on you for being “compromised”?
You seem to believe that you know exactly what’s going on and that these people are not worth “saving” from their error. As your opposite on many topics, let me point out that there are a LOT of good people fighting for reform and health in the circles you so glibly write off but I work to strengthen. Those people deserve help, not another kneecapping in FrontLine.
If the only reason why you ally with people or organizations is to strengthen yourself and your ministry, what are you actually aiming for or achieving?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]You seem to believe that you know exactly what’s going on and that these people are not worth “saving” from their error. As your opposite on many topics, let me point out that there are a LOT of good people fighting for reform and health in the circles you so glibly write off but I work to strengthen. Those people deserve help, not another kneecapping in FrontLine.
This is pretty strong rhetoric from a guy who objectives to strong rhetoric. I don’t recall ever seeing a “kneecapping” at Frontline
Jeff Straub
The slippery slope fallacy actually does have a definition, and it does not fit what Wally is saying about his dog, or the analogy to Stone Mountain. Those who would support the dress code or whatever part of BJU’s history might be being abandoned today need to demonstrate exactly why, say, not requiring men to wear suit & tie to a tube steak dinner is going to lead to abandonment of a theological principle. Or, why would people stop believing in the virgin birth because they hear music with a beat (or maybe even danceable), etc..
There is also the reality that when we’re talking about “higher” standards of dress, we do run into what James tells us in the second chapter about the sin of deferring to those who appear to be rich. Like it or not, suit & tie is upper middle class/wealthy white collar attire. Requiring it is contradicted by verse 2, where we are counseled to welcome those in “vile raiment” equally, and the church is asked why on earth they’re favoring people who tend to oppress poor members of the church.
In the same way, those supposed “high standards” of music required by too many schools really boil down, apart from legitimate concerns about lyrics in music, to an insistence that music not be danceable, and not feature too prominent of a beat or percussive instruments. That runs into Psalms 149 and 150.
Really, wherever we’ve got rules that appear to have a counter in Scripture, we are in effect training people to ignore Scripture when it’s convenient to us. So just as a lot of our extra-Biblical cultural rules have their roots in the “social gospel” of the 1800s (and theological liberalism), I would argue that we’re actually undermining Sola Scriptura and the first fundamental.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“Convergence”
No, you probably don’t recognize it, Jeff.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I find it interesting that anytime so-called “secondary separation” comes up, people start trotting out the fundy taboos of the 80s as if that somehow negates the biblical principle. A principle applied wrongly does not negate the principle. We are talking about Billy Graham ministries here. This isn’t some obscure ministry without a definable track record. This is THE ministry that most clearly rejected separation during the new-evangelical split (and yes it was them that split off). Graham’s NY crusade was the catalyst. Graham denied the gospel by giving Christian recognition to false teachers/unbelievers. Anyone who denies this either doesn’t understand the gospel or doesn’t know the history.
I have no connection to BJU but I find it concerning that they partnered with SP; just as I find it concerning that Beale did not exercise more caution in labeling.
It seems that some have a disposition to criticize even careful fundamentalists but they won’t apply the same standard to conservative evangelicals or those to the left of them. I don’t understand that.
Josh, whenever these issues come up on SI today, there is fierce advocacy on the part of some here on their behalf. We can debate what the effects are of these policies, for good or ill, but let’s not pretend they were left behind in the 1980s. Really, the big part of the objections come with Steve Pettit assuming the Presidency of BJU, and he took that job in 2014.
Regarding secondary separation in particular, the Graham crusades are a good example, IMO, why our first look ought not be secondary separation, but rather the kind of ministry being done. The big failure in the Graham crusades, one that ought to let us wonder whether he led people to Christ or inoculated people against Him, is the ~98% rate at which those who reported a salvation decision did not become integrated into a Bible believing church, and that derives primarily from very weak follow-up plans on the Graham organization’s part. Allowing liberal Christians to volunteer was certainly not helpful, but it’s not exactly like the evangelicals (and fundamentalists) he partnered with were showing the world how to do it, either.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[josh p]I find it interesting that anytime so-called “secondary separation” comes up, people start trotting out the fundy taboos of the 80s as if that somehow negates the biblical principle. A principle applied wrongly does not negate the principle.
I agree in principle. However, “secondary separation” has been so misused and abused within Fundamentalism that it no longer resembles the biblical principle it seeks to uphold. Separatist Fundamentalists were using “secondary separation” to break fellowship over all kinds of perceived compromise and downgrade, real or not. And, if you didn’t agree with them that there was legitimate compromise taking place, you were yourself separated from. Secondary separation became like crack cocaine. Once you had a hit, you had to keep going back for more to prove you were a bona fide Fundamentalist.
So, that is why I—today—view secondary separation very suspiciously. I would rather give the benefit of the doubt and assume positive intent before I write off a Christian brother, ministry, or church.
Un-Biblical separation is as much a sin as failing to practice true Biblical separation. Take a close look at Galatians chapter two. Peter, Barnabas, and others separated from Gentile Christians, apparently because they did not restrict themselves to Kosher food. Paul excoriated Peter for this, accusing him of serious sin. Paul said that such un-Biblical separation undermined the Gospel of Christ. (Think that one through very carefully.)
Practicing one truth while ignoring another that is equally taught in Scripture, leads to misunderstanding, imbalance, and sin.
G. N. Barkman
The misuse of something does not negate its validity. If true, then none of us would be Christians.
Our daughter was a student at Northland from 2001 – 2005. When the school started changing some of its practices, I asked the administration some questions. One response I received was “I guess we moved too far too fast.” Too far too fast? That implies that if they had made the changes more slowly over a longer period of time, that would give people time to “get used to” the changes so they can make more changes. Small changes at first in order to make more changes later. The later changes are often ones which someone hadn’t considered or thought of earlier.
When we first moved to Huntington, some churches began canceling Sunday evening services completely during the Summer, promising to begin again in the Fall. The reasoning was to provide “family time”. I told my wife to watch carefully what happens as eventually those churches and other churches will begin canceling Sunday night services completely. Sure enough, that is what happened. What started as “only for the Summer” extended to “year ‘round”.
Many years ago BJU played Furman in a soccer game during the Thanksgiving season. This was the first time BJU had ever done that. At the time the BJU administration explicitly stated that this was a “one-time” event and would not lead to BJU developing an intercollegiate sports program. Well, look at what happened.
Our local “Christian” college, Huntington University, has been moving more and more toward the more liberal side of Evangelicalism for many years. Every year shows a little more change. Now students, if they are old enough, may smoke and drink alcoholic beverages and the campus has a gay/lesbian/transgender support group.
The “downgrade” Spurgeon and others encountered began with small changes and accelerated to open theological liberalism. The term “downgrade” itself implies some sort of slide “downward”.
I have never argued for opposing all change, and I have never said that the “slippery slope” concept is perfect. Do other factors exist which contributed to all of these situations? Of course. But real life, not philosophical theory, shows that a genuine danger does exist. I am not interested in philosophical discussions or hypothetical illustrations. Real life and real behavior from real people give me reason to, at least, question the wisdom of certain changes at Christian colleges. The fact that people have higher reasoning ability than dogs makes people more responsible for their behavior, not less.
The BGEA still uses cooperative evangelism. Will Franklin held an evangelistic meeting in Ft. Wayne and included any church which wanted to participate, even the liberal churches and Catholics.
The changes in BJU’s dress code and other practices are symptoms of a deeper problem/change. Discussions about specific clothing styles and “secondary separation” tend to obscure important discussion and questions about the wisdom of the changes at BJU. I know missionaries who graduated from BJU not that long ago who tell me that they don’t recognize the school any longer. The group which has responsibility for BJU is the Board of Trustees. In my opinion, they are the ones who have failed. Their goal seems to have been to keep the school open. They have achieved that goal, but at what eventual cost?
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Discussion