Chris Anderson’s “The Scandal of Schism” – A Review
Image
Every Fundamentalist needs to read Chris Anderson’s new book The Scandal of Schism. The book charts the currents that are pulling younger Fundamentalists away from a strict separatist position. We ignore Anderson’s work to our own peril. His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical.
In his characteristically self-assured fashion, Michael Barrett (Anderson’s lifelong mentor and former professor at Bob Jones University) sets the tone for the book in his endorsement,
In the providence of God, I was born, raised, educated, and involved in ministering within extreme fundamentalist environments. Ironically and thankfully, it was in those places that I became thoroughly convinced of Calvinism and covenant/reformed theology… . I serve now in a wider, yet conservative, evangelical environment without a guilty conscience.
Barrett’s disciple follows in his mentor’s footsteps,
I’ve become more comfortable over the years deferring to Christians on my left—people who may be less conservative than me on some issues but who share a love for Christ, for expository preaching, for reformed soteriology, and so on. Conversely, I’ve tended to roll my eyes at Christians on my right—people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election. (160)
Fundamentalists are not the only ones that Anderson is writing to: “Every time I see a faithful brother criticized, censured, or canceled by fellow conservative evangelicals, I want to scream, ‘I’ve lived in hyper-separatist isolation. You don’t want to go there!’” (14) Anderson does not want “fellow conservative evangelicals” to hike the hyper-separatist trail that the Fundamentalists have blazed.
“Sadly,” Anderson observes, “whereas fundamentalists were right to combat apostasy (modernists) and to separate from compromise (new evangelicals), many drifted from a healthy defense of the truth into a schismatic spirit” (29). Hence, Fundamentalism “became mean” and “fractured through continual fault-finding and infighting” (30).
It was at a Together For the Gospel (T4G) event that Anderson finally “could enjoy fellowship with like-minded Christians and ministries on the basis of like precious faith, regardless of their denominational or historic affiliations” (47). Liberated from legalism, he is now “living by principle, not fear” (62). Though no longer a hyper-separatist, he does still call for separating from false teachers and unrepentant Christians.
Anderson criticizes Evangelist Billy Graham for aligning with those who deny the Gospel, but he also describes Graham as “the world’s greatest evangelist” and a “beloved gospel preacher [who] did a great deal of good” (70,71).
In chapters eight through eleven, Anderson intensifies his condemnation of unbiblical separation (or schism):
We should value every gospel-preaching church, imperfect as it may be. And more to the point, we should fear raising a finger—or a voice—against any body of believers… . We might well repurpose 1 Chronicles16:22 to refer to the church: “Touch not God’s anointed.” (121)
Chapter 11 pertains specifically to worship. Anderson admits he has “relaxed a bit regarding acceptable music styles” (125). He now calls most “arguments in favor of conservative music … ludicrous … borderline racist … comically pseudo-scientific … [and] alarmingly elitist” (126). He looks to the Psalms for his worship standards:
The inspired hymnal and handbook which tells us how our glorious God should be praised … [is] astoundingly expressive and emotive. Sometimes we weep as we worship God. But sometimes we shout, or clap, or (dare I say it) even dance. (131)
Anderson pleads with his “more conservative friends” to “stop pressing your preferences onto other people’s consciences. Stop justifying unbiblical judgmentalism. And stop separating from faithful brothers and sisters over musical preferences” (134, 135). In the book, music and alcohol are Anderson’s two favorite hobby horses.
Approaching the end of his book, Anderson encourages pastors to communicate this message to their people: “We don’t all have to listen to the same music. We don’t all have to home school, or Christian school, or public school. We don’t have to agree on alcohol. We don’t have to agree on politics” (141). To him, unity is Gospel-based (a major theme of T4G), and for the Gospel’s sake he pleads for deference among Christians. He closes his book by condemning “systemic racism” (163) and promoting a “big-tent orthodoxy” (177).
As a former hyper-separatist, Anderson confesses that at one time “anybody less conservative than me was a liberal or a new evangelical, and anybody more conservative than me was a legalist” (38). I must admit that this statement brought specific people to my mind!
Anderson’s division of all issues into “Core doctrines,” “Important doctrines,” and “Peripheral issues” is a useful analytical tool when determining how much and with whom we can cooperate in Gospel ministry (159).
Although I appreciate Anderson’s many nostalgic and helpful points, he comes across as a little arrogant in his book. The reason he gives for why he and his ministry friends have shifted their position on separation is because “after ten or fifteen years of preaching multiple times a week, we came to know the Scriptures really well. We learned discernment” (49). Didn’t their Fundamentalist Forefathers also preach “multiple times a week?” Didn’t they possess the same Spirit of discernment?
While considering Romans 14, Anderson claims that the Apostle Paul “is discussing practices that are amoral, not immoral” (155). I would love to pin Anderson down on which modern issues he classifies as “amoral”? Is music amoral? Was it wrong for me to be bothered when a musician sang “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” to the tune of Garth Brooks’ “Friends in Low Places” at a local evangelistic meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jj5G5OsUw)? Is hard liquor amoral? Is it wrong for me to distance myself from certain pastors who constantly post pictures of themselves imbibing? Is dress amoral? Do Christians have the right to wear bikinis and Speedos to a “mixed bathing” event? Surely, there are some boundaries.
Many of our Fundamentalist Forefathers opposed the “worldly practices” sanctioned in Anderson’s book because they were saved out of them. Understanding the powerful draw of these practices, they did not want themselves or others to be ensnared by them. Many third and fourth generation Fundamentalists have never experienced the ill-effects of activities such as drinking alcohol, gambling, dancing, etc., and this makes them unaware of their dangers.
Anderson saturates his book with the perspectives of Reformed Christians—both past and present. I would suggest he make some new friends among Arminian groups such as the Free Will Baptists and evangelical Methodists/Wesleyans. In his book, he fails to appreciate the odors emanating from these flowers in God’s garden. Perhaps he should show deference to their lack of “reformed soteriology” for the sake of a broader Gospel witness. Grace.
Some apply First Corinthians 15:33 very strictly: “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals” (ESV). They are labeled hyper-separatists. Others apply it less strictly. They are labeled compromisers. Who is right? Jesus’ words in Luke 7:35 give the only possible answer this question: “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” In other words, only time will tell.
C. D. Cauthorne Bio
C. D. Cauthorne Jr. earned his BA and MA at Bob Jones University during the 1990s. He and his wife Heather serve at Calvary Baptist Church near Clintwood, Virginia, where C. D. is pastor.
- 258 views
First, I appreciate C.D. submitting a review. I was not aware Chris Anderson had published a book on this topic.
Second, here’s a link to the book. I would encourage readers to get a copy and see for themselves what they perceive the emphasis and central message to be, as well as what he means by terms like ‘hyper-separatist,’ etc.
(It is an ‘affiliate’ link, so some tiny % of sales goes back to SI.)
A few thoughts on these topics, then…
- Since Romans 14 exists, there is as much obligation to respect and affirm fellow believers (unity) who disagree over the matters of the sort it refers to as there is obligation to separate over matters that are more, well, fundamental.
- Discernment does not come automatically to those who have the Spirit. (“Didn’t their Fundamentalist Forefathers also preach ‘multiple times a week?’ Didn’t they possess the same Spirit of discernment?”)
- I’ve shared thoughts here many times on the revivalist tradition and the expositional tradition in the fundamentalist movement. I witnessed first hand just how much influence the revivalist tradition had on ideas about separatism in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. I heard a ton of bad preaching from that neck of the woods. Doing exposition (if it can be called that) frequently but not well doesn’t improve discernment. (Confirmation bias pretty much defines the genre—aka hobby horsing and eisegesis.)
- I also heard a ton of good preaching out of the expositional tradition, so… by college days, I knew well the difference. When you do good exposition, frequency of practice does increase skill and discernment.
- One of first things we lose when we become too insular is our sense of scale. We get part of our sense of what’s a big deal and what’s a small deal and what’s a medium deal from our exposure to fellow believers who have different backgrounds and perspectives on matters of application.
- The older I get, the less time I feel like I have for hair-splitting. Just saying.
- Because Romans 14 and passages like it exist, we know that it is possible to disagree, stand firm, yet maintain respect for fellow-believers who disagree. We can even openly disagree and make a case for our beliefs in these matters without (a) categorizing those we differ with as something tainted or inferior and without (b) exercising punitive separation. (I wrote about this in The Neglected Posture of Conscience some years ago…. maybe not well, but maybe somewhat helpfully.)
- “Punitive separation” is redundant: real separation is always punitive in the NT, but many now use the term for passive cooperation-selectivity. So can we engage in selective non-cooperation in various ministry activities over some Romans 14 matters? Of course.
- We mostly engage in passive non-cooperation simply because other ministries are far away or simply because there is only so much time and money and we’re already booked.
- So, could we do it because we don’t like their music? I don’t see why not. … because they believe it’s OK to have a little wine with a meal and we don’t? Hard to see how that’s relevant, but OK. Because they seem booze-obsessed? There are some like that I guess. That’s more substantive.
- Refraining from working together due to differences in practice/emphasis/ applications of Scripture is not the same thing as classifying individuals and ministries as inauthentic, substandard, unworthy to be associated with, having cooties, etc.
- It’s also not the same thing as saying, “We disagree about this for these reasons.”
I haven’t read the book, but I know he’s reacting to a lot of the same nonsense I got sick of in the 80’s and 90’s. I would probably draw a few lines in a few different places. But schism is not a safer or more noble error than failure to separate. I suspect I’m in agreement with C. Anderson on that point.
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.
-
This is a great book, especially for those whose impression of Biblical Fundamentalism was one of of a group who was more interested in fighting and separating from other Christians than of fighting against those who denied clear Biblical truth. You know, those people who waged war against bad music, worldly clothing, movies, dancing, etc. and are finding that they've separated themselves into in insignficance. The author and I have travelled the same path from being suspcious of Christians who were different than ourselves to realizing that the Bible, while teaching separation on some issues, has more to say about unity in the Body of Christ. The difference between this book and others on the topic is that this one is personal and the author, like me, admits he was a schismatic and had sought to make up for his errors. He is humorous, self-depracating, and kind. He doesn't "name names". His position is Bibilically based, so those who would disagree are going to have to argue with Scripture. (The reviewer chooses to point out his differences with Anderson's points instead of the Scripture Anderson uses to support his points.) The fact is that schism created by doctrinally sound Christians with other doctrinally sound Christians is a sin that has existed since Corinth.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Fair to say there are different "flavors" of fundamentalism
My hope is that when we do recognize a need to separate or not to separate, it is because of a clear understanding of scripture rather than because of the peer pressure of those around us. My observation has been that some have separated when they should not have separated simply do to peer pressure while others should have separated yet did not because of peer pressure. Too often the doctrine of fundamentalism has been defined by peer pressure rather than by scripture and it can go both ways.
I used to consider Chris a friend. Our relationship began to deteriorate when he couldn't find it in himself to condemn the reprehensible Mark Driscoll. Instead he sang his praises. Oh, he would give lip service to tut-tutting about Driscoll's cussin' but Driscoll had such "sound theology" don't you know?
Chris has had very little discernment for a long time. His book as reported here puts it on public display.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Well, all I can say is that my heart was so encouraged by the defense of Biblical separatism and conservative Christian music that Chris used to thoughtfully and persuasively articulate in his My Two Cents blog. He has also graced our churches with many fine hymns, some that I have literally wept to when singing or hearing them sung. I will forever be grateful for those things.
As characterized in the review, Anderson's condemnation of moralistic fundamentalism appears to be a pretense for "raising a finger" against the separatist instinct which is integral to the fundamentalist movement. Cauthorne has aptly responded, particularly with regard to the historical and moralistic concerns.
Alternatively, I want to push back against the fatal flaw of the modern "theological triage" approach which has been popularized by Mohler,1 Putman,2 Ortlund,3 and now, evidently, by Anderson. This methodology is being used to encourage fellowship with others who subscribe to the minimal requirements of "big-tent orthodoxy." The model has value, but it fails in its handling of the first-level category, for it lays two disparate burdens on this central category—is a person saved and is that person orthodox? There are different levels of fellowship which one can have with an unbeliever (or wayward believer), with a new believer, or with one who affirms the elementary doctrines of Hebrews 6:1-2, or of the early creeds, or of Mohler's short-list which came out of the liberalism-fundamentalism battles of the early 1900s. But none of these criteria rise to the level of affirming that the believer is orthodox, to a level which would permit substantive fellowship, or uncritical deference in areas of orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
Further, we must always heed Scripture's admonition and warning. Out of a divine jealousy for the Corinthians, Paul expressed his fear that the Corinthians would be "led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:4 ESV). He was specifically concerned because they were happily fellowshipping with those who proclaimed a differed Jesus, spirit, or gospel from the one which he had preached. In his former letter, he plead for unity, but at the same time he stated that there "must be factions among you that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor. 11:19). Accordingly, in its deference to the authority of the Word of God, I suggest that the separatist instinct itself is an essential aspect of orthodoxy. It is an instinct to be both nurtured and managed, lest it become distorted.
Do we attend T4G, TGC, or ETS conferences? Perhaps, but not with the assumption that all participants follow or will be singing praise to the same Jesus, the same spirit, or the same gospel. The wolves are out there and many claim the merit badge of "conservative evangelical."
______
1 Albert Mohler, "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." https://albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/
2 Rhyne R. Putman, When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
3 Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
Discussion