Chris Anderson’s “The Scandal of Schism” – A Review
Image
Every Fundamentalist needs to read Chris Anderson’s new book The Scandal of Schism. The book charts the currents that are pulling younger Fundamentalists away from a strict separatist position. We ignore Anderson’s work to our own peril. His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical.
In his characteristically self-assured fashion, Michael Barrett (Anderson’s lifelong mentor and former professor at Bob Jones University) sets the tone for the book in his endorsement,
In the providence of God, I was born, raised, educated, and involved in ministering within extreme fundamentalist environments. Ironically and thankfully, it was in those places that I became thoroughly convinced of Calvinism and covenant/reformed theology… . I serve now in a wider, yet conservative, evangelical environment without a guilty conscience.
Barrett’s disciple follows in his mentor’s footsteps,
I’ve become more comfortable over the years deferring to Christians on my left—people who may be less conservative than me on some issues but who share a love for Christ, for expository preaching, for reformed soteriology, and so on. Conversely, I’ve tended to roll my eyes at Christians on my right—people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election. (160)
Fundamentalists are not the only ones that Anderson is writing to: “Every time I see a faithful brother criticized, censured, or canceled by fellow conservative evangelicals, I want to scream, ‘I’ve lived in hyper-separatist isolation. You don’t want to go there!’” (14) Anderson does not want “fellow conservative evangelicals” to hike the hyper-separatist trail that the Fundamentalists have blazed.
“Sadly,” Anderson observes, “whereas fundamentalists were right to combat apostasy (modernists) and to separate from compromise (new evangelicals), many drifted from a healthy defense of the truth into a schismatic spirit” (29). Hence, Fundamentalism “became mean” and “fractured through continual fault-finding and infighting” (30).
It was at a Together For the Gospel (T4G) event that Anderson finally “could enjoy fellowship with like-minded Christians and ministries on the basis of like precious faith, regardless of their denominational or historic affiliations” (47). Liberated from legalism, he is now “living by principle, not fear” (62). Though no longer a hyper-separatist, he does still call for separating from false teachers and unrepentant Christians.
Anderson criticizes Evangelist Billy Graham for aligning with those who deny the Gospel, but he also describes Graham as “the world’s greatest evangelist” and a “beloved gospel preacher [who] did a great deal of good” (70,71).
In chapters eight through eleven, Anderson intensifies his condemnation of unbiblical separation (or schism):
We should value every gospel-preaching church, imperfect as it may be. And more to the point, we should fear raising a finger—or a voice—against any body of believers… . We might well repurpose 1 Chronicles16:22 to refer to the church: “Touch not God’s anointed.” (121)
Chapter 11 pertains specifically to worship. Anderson admits he has “relaxed a bit regarding acceptable music styles” (125). He now calls most “arguments in favor of conservative music … ludicrous … borderline racist … comically pseudo-scientific … [and] alarmingly elitist” (126). He looks to the Psalms for his worship standards:
The inspired hymnal and handbook which tells us how our glorious God should be praised … [is] astoundingly expressive and emotive. Sometimes we weep as we worship God. But sometimes we shout, or clap, or (dare I say it) even dance. (131)
Anderson pleads with his “more conservative friends” to “stop pressing your preferences onto other people’s consciences. Stop justifying unbiblical judgmentalism. And stop separating from faithful brothers and sisters over musical preferences” (134, 135). In the book, music and alcohol are Anderson’s two favorite hobby horses.
Approaching the end of his book, Anderson encourages pastors to communicate this message to their people: “We don’t all have to listen to the same music. We don’t all have to home school, or Christian school, or public school. We don’t have to agree on alcohol. We don’t have to agree on politics” (141). To him, unity is Gospel-based (a major theme of T4G), and for the Gospel’s sake he pleads for deference among Christians. He closes his book by condemning “systemic racism” (163) and promoting a “big-tent orthodoxy” (177).
As a former hyper-separatist, Anderson confesses that at one time “anybody less conservative than me was a liberal or a new evangelical, and anybody more conservative than me was a legalist” (38). I must admit that this statement brought specific people to my mind!
Anderson’s division of all issues into “Core doctrines,” “Important doctrines,” and “Peripheral issues” is a useful analytical tool when determining how much and with whom we can cooperate in Gospel ministry (159).
Although I appreciate Anderson’s many nostalgic and helpful points, he comes across as a little arrogant in his book. The reason he gives for why he and his ministry friends have shifted their position on separation is because “after ten or fifteen years of preaching multiple times a week, we came to know the Scriptures really well. We learned discernment” (49). Didn’t their Fundamentalist Forefathers also preach “multiple times a week?” Didn’t they possess the same Spirit of discernment?
While considering Romans 14, Anderson claims that the Apostle Paul “is discussing practices that are amoral, not immoral” (155). I would love to pin Anderson down on which modern issues he classifies as “amoral”? Is music amoral? Was it wrong for me to be bothered when a musician sang “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” to the tune of Garth Brooks’ “Friends in Low Places” at a local evangelistic meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jj5G5OsUw)? Is hard liquor amoral? Is it wrong for me to distance myself from certain pastors who constantly post pictures of themselves imbibing? Is dress amoral? Do Christians have the right to wear bikinis and Speedos to a “mixed bathing” event? Surely, there are some boundaries.
Many of our Fundamentalist Forefathers opposed the “worldly practices” sanctioned in Anderson’s book because they were saved out of them. Understanding the powerful draw of these practices, they did not want themselves or others to be ensnared by them. Many third and fourth generation Fundamentalists have never experienced the ill-effects of activities such as drinking alcohol, gambling, dancing, etc., and this makes them unaware of their dangers.
Anderson saturates his book with the perspectives of Reformed Christians—both past and present. I would suggest he make some new friends among Arminian groups such as the Free Will Baptists and evangelical Methodists/Wesleyans. In his book, he fails to appreciate the odors emanating from these flowers in God’s garden. Perhaps he should show deference to their lack of “reformed soteriology” for the sake of a broader Gospel witness. Grace.
Some apply First Corinthians 15:33 very strictly: “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals” (ESV). They are labeled hyper-separatists. Others apply it less strictly. They are labeled compromisers. Who is right? Jesus’ words in Luke 7:35 give the only possible answer to this question: “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” In other words, only time will tell.
C. D. Cauthorne Bio
C. D. Cauthorne Jr. earned his BA and MA at Bob Jones University during the 1990s. He and his wife Heather serve at Calvary Baptist Church near Clintwood, Virginia, where C. D. is pastor.
- 2902 views
Fundamentalism is a good and proper philosophy for Christian life and theology. But, because we believe in soul liberty, good folks will disagree about where the lines are between the fundamentals and principles and personal preference. I doubt few would disagree that separation can be taken too far. I also doubt few in our circles would disagree that separation isn’t negotiable—personal holiness isn’t a suggestion. I think the more books which aim to get us to think through these issues, the better.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Friends, I'm grateful that the book is generating some profitable conversation. That said, as its author, I found the review to be quite unfair, or at least inaccurate. The best thing would be for those who are interested to read the book for themselves. But I will offer a few corrections or clarifications regarding the conversation here:
- First, it's unfortunate that the reviewer's first comment is a dig at Michael Barrett. That was undeserved, and it offers no substantive critique of the book.
- Next, the reviewer's bias is clear even when he quotes me. I'll cite just the most egregious example. Yes, I wrote, "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." But the reviewer intentionally cuts off the very next sentence, where I acknowledge that I was wrong: "But the Lord has convicted me about these attitudes, revealing to me my own schismatic spirit" (160). Frankly, that just feels dishonest.
- Similarly, the reviewer misrepresents my treatment of Billy Graham. I do give caveats about the good Graham did. I'm glad the gospel was preached to so many. Then I launch into a full-blown critique of Graham's failure to separate from apostates. Nobody can read those pages (70-71) and think I'm unclear on Graham's tragic disobedience to Scripture. Again, the quotation he cites is ripped from context: I critique Graham's increasing ecumenism (including his horrific comments to Robert Schuller) and conclude, sadly, that "Behavior eventually affects belief, even for the world's greatest evangelist" (70). That's hardly a commendation.
- I do spend a chapter on discernment and deference, based on Romans 14. I believe the practices in question are amoral, not immoral (155). Murder isn't a discernment issue, for example. It's unfair to say that alcohol is my "hobbyhorse," but I bring wine up in my treatment of Romans 14 because it appears there. I think wine is one issue about which we've often preached what we wish Scripture said instead of what it does say. And it was a good book by a fundamentalist that helped me recognize that fact.
- I admit that I press fairly hard in the chapter on music. My intent was to demonstrate how conservatives have sometimes suspended the rules of sound hermeneutics when it comes to this topic. I carefully worded every main point to indicate how I had mishandled the Bible to reach my desired conclusions. I'm casting stones mostly at myself. Yes, I'm very comfortable using the Psalms as a guide for our worship. Of course! That makes far more sense than OT narratives that have nothing to do with music. But I don't use the Psalms to argue that anything goes. I argue repeatedly for reverence. I note how much I enjoy very conservative music. In fact, after mentioning the Bible's use of dancing (which the reviewer kindly cited), I deadpan, "though I'm not inclined to try it myself" (131). My main burden is that we not fear what Scripture teaches on this or any topic. Let it speak.
I'll wrap up. Perhaps I'm overly defensive, but I think the review misrepresents me and the book fairly significantly. The book is actually very conservative. It argues extensively in favor of separation. Yes, it points out times where I think we fundamentalists have become too enamored with the fight. But it's a critique of me as much as anyone. And I'm still unapologetically a separatist.
You may not agree with what I've written. I expected some of that, though I'm writing as a fundamentalist insider. But disagree with me, not a caricature of me. Grace to you.
P.S. I've gone on the record saying that Driscoll's antics were unbecoming a gospel preacher. :) For the record: https://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/my-two-cents-on-mark-drisco…
If it is legitimate to hold that what Romans 14 says about food and drink applies to what is true about the use of instrumental music in corporate worship, consider the following:
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
If what we are to believe about and do with instrumental music in corporate worship really is like what we are to believe about and do with food and drink in ordinary eating, then the kingdom of God is not instrumental music, right?
We have a dishonest review that deserves an apology (but I'm not holding my breath), comments made by people who have not read the book, a proud comment by someone who doesn't need to read the book to know what's in it, and no one addressing Anderson's Biblical support for his conclusion. Do you still wonder why people, young and old, are walking away from the separated/schismatic fundamentalism?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Congratulations on finishing this book. Just got it today. Thanks for this gift to the church!
I went straight to chapter 13 on deference. (I'l read the rest later...)
On raw data,
1- I found it interesting that Blomberg puts 5 years between the expulsion of the Jews from Rome and their return. Moo puts it at 1.5-2 years, if I recall correctly. Either way, I think it's important that you noted this temporary freedom the gentiles experienced and the irenic nature of the letter to the Romans.
2- little typo: on p156 you quote Romans 14:10, 12, 4 not “Romans 14:10, 12, 14."
On interpretation of Romans 14:
1- You by-pass the aspect of active Lordship underlying the different convictions the Romans had. see v4(the Lord is able) and vv6-9(died...lived...that He might actively rule--or exercise Lordship). I would like to see how meditating on that would change this chapter.
2- On p157, you suggest the Romans issue was ham (abrogated food laws). But R14:1-3 doesn't say they avoided pork. It says they were vegetarian. Historically, we know Jews refused meat in foreign cities due to possible idolatrous defilement. That makes the biblical principles of these strict brothers idolatry-avoidance (see Daniel & the King's meat and Hodge). That's important because idolatry is still evil.
3- On p157: "...if I have the liberty in my conscience to [do X], I can do so with thanksgiving, even if other brothers and sisters can't." I LOVE the word choice here!
Overall, I'm encouraged that you to see that Paul had more respect for these strict Christians in Rome than we normally suppose (and I would encourage you so see that he had MUCH more respect for them).
Dan (and Rajesh), I'm sure there's much more to learn from Romans 14 than is evident in my cursory treatment. I'm glad you've spent so much time there.
My concern is not to fight for every individual's rights to live as they please, regardless of the consequences. Paul is clear that sometimes limiting your liberties for the good of the kingdom (as Rajesh mentions) and the spiritual health of a weaker brother (as Dan mentions) is the right thing to do. But we can't so emphasize that deference that we undo the entire passage. Paul had the perfect opportunity to say that we should all live by the consciences of other brothers and sisters, and especially of our most conservative friends. But that's not at all what he says. He brackets the entire section with commands to "welcome" those with whom you differ, whether they are more or less lenient than you are on issues of conscience (Romans 14:1-4 and 15:7). He didn't seek to settle these issues, but instead left the ambiguity and argued for mutual acceptance vs. judgment (14:3, 4, 10, 13, 22). So even as we talk about deference, it should be extended in both directions.
Glad for the conversation. Grace to you.
"We have a dishonest review that deserves an apology"
Yes. I agree. I do believe there are limits on how much we need to accommodate the strict brother. (I'm about to submit an article on that here...)
Every strict (on an issue) Christian thinks highly of his conviction.
Every free (on an issue) Christian thinks lowly of that conviction. (Thus, Don't despise.)
Paul writes Romans and does what?
--Did he push the strict Christian to think lower of his conviction? NO. He told him to be fully persuaded and to follow it to "honor the Lord" because Jesus is a Master with active Lordship.
But also YES. Paul told him to think highly of it for himself, but lowly of it as a general (or universal) conviction.
--Did he push the free Christian to think higher of that conviction? No. The Master has a different order for him, so he "honors the Lord" another way.
But also YES. Because he needs to honor the conviction in the life of his brother.
p155: You say, "Paul's instruction is for each believer to make up his own mind on these controversial topics (14:2, 5) and to guard his own conscience (14:22-23). And the assumption is that people will land in different places, which this passage says is fine!"
I like that you say these differences are "fine."
But I think it understates the active Lordship of Jesus in these things (thus what I said above about meditating on R14:4,6-9). I don't think these are depicted as "God says that's ok." It's more like, "God has led people to this conclusion, so they must obey it."
I'm not looking for an apology. I hope more people will read the book and engage with the Scriptures because of the review. I just wanted to correct what I deem to be some misrepresentations. I wish nothing but God's blessings on brother Cauthorne and his ministry.
Chris,
I hesitate to respond to your review of my review, but I want to offer an explanation for why I wrote what I wrote.
Michael Barrett is certainly fair game for this review. His endorsement appears on your front cover. He has had an outsized influence upon you. Your journey mirrors his journey. Your tone mirrors his tone. I sat in two of his classes at BJU, and I remember his occasional asides that were critical of 1990s Fundamentalism. You echo his sentiments. I am not saying your beliefs are not your own, but I am saying that you (and many other seminarians) have been heavily influenced by Barrett.
You can couch your statement (in my review I acknowledge that you criticize Billy Graham in your book), but I disagree with anyone who calls Graham "the world's greatest evangelist." Your phrase begs the question about what constitutes greatness -- numbers or Biblical faithfulness.
Your quote, "But the Lord has convicted me about these attitudes, revealing to me my own schismatic spirit" (160) is in a separate paragraph from your statement about rolling your eyes at "Christians on my right -- people who still use the King James Version, who have more traditional services, or who minimize election." (Perhaps you would accuse me of being a "Grammar Nazi" for pointing this out.) You acknowledge earlier in the paragraph that I quote from: "I'm working on the forgotten virtue of deference. I haven't arrived, to be sure." In other words, you are still struggling with dismissing "Christians on my right." I am glad you admit that your present attitude is sinful, but it is fair game for me to point out that you are still struggling with taking people like me (and others on your right) seriously. You are naturally attracted to Reformed Christians on your left and not to old-school Fundamentalists on your right -- by your own admission.
I must confess that I used "hobby horse" on purpose since the phrase is often used derisively against Fundamentalists whom you now criticize. I employ this phrase because you acknowledge in an early footnote: "I will cite alcohol a few times in this book as an example of an issue which is unnecessarily divisive" (30).
I state clearly in my review that you "call for separating from false teachers and unrepentant Christians." I am not misrepresenting you. I am simply bringing to light the undertones of your book.
I strongly encourage everyone to obtain a copy of your book and to wrestle with the Scriptures that you cite therein. As I note in my review: "His words must either be refuted from the Bible or acknowledged to be biblical."
My article is not "a dishonest review that deserves an apology." It simply points out areas of concern that many Fundamentalists have about you and your book.
I conclude my review by asking: "Who is right? Jesus’ words in Luke 7:35 give the only possible answer to this question: 'Wisdom is justified of all her children.' In other words, only time will tell." If my closing statement isn't deference, then I don't know what is.
Ironically, this entire thread demonstrates the very “scandal of schism” the book addresses. You could not ask for a better advertisement for the need to re-consider schismatic tendencies.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler says a group of guys disagreeing on an online form is schism. Am I getting that right?
The debate is about ministry philosophy and choices. I don’t think I have to protest that I am a fundamentalist after all. Most people, I guess, would consider it self evident. I am willing to confess to it, but I don’t have to protest to it. I think that marks a significant difference.
I’m sorry Dr Barrett, my former advisor in grad school, has changed his views. If there were fundamentalists in the 90s who went to far, what does that matter for the basic concept? Are we God centered or man centered to make our theological philosophy depend on what men do?
As I see it, fundamentalism among other things guides our ecclesiastical choices. We are separated from liberalism and we chose not to cooperate in ecclesiastical work with those who won’t fully separate. So we wouldn’t choose to co-author a book with, say Carl Truman for instance. And we wouldn’t join with Chuck Swindoll because he happens to like some music we produced.
Fundamentalists don’t condemn those guys as non-Christians, but we don’t cooperate with them either.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
God did not inspire Romans 14 by itself to stand alone apart from any consideration of what the rest of the book of Romans teaches. Faulty interpretations of Romans 14 disregard or deny Paul's teaching in Romans 1:30 about evil people who are inventors of evil things, in Romans 12:2 about not being conformed to the world, and in Romans 13:12-14 about casting off the works of darkness.
Rejecting what inventors of evil things have invented, not being conformed to the world, and casting off the works of darkness have everything to do with rightly determining what "genres" of instrumental music God accepts for use in corporate worship and what "genres" He does not accept.
*****Note: To prevent certain users of SI from wrongly attacking me for making these remarks, I am directly stating that I am not asserting that Chris Anderson has engaged in such faulty handling of Romans 14 as I have talked about above in this post. I do not know what Chris has or has not said about such matters.
Rather, I am speaking broadly about how Romans 14 must be interpreted correctly and about interpretations that are faulty because they have treated Romans 14 in isolation from the rest of what is taught in the book of Romans.
Don,
You say, "we chose not to cooperate in ecclesiastical work". Is this really the case? One of the biggest reasons for the friction between the BJU Board, the FBFI and Dr. Petit was inviting Trevor Lawrence, a Christian, but not sufficiently fundamentalist, to speak at a sporting event at the college. BJU is not an ecclesiastical institution, nor was the event an ecclesiastical function. The concern hasn't really been about cooperation at the ecclesiastical level, but the need to separate at the secondary, tertiary and further levels.
First, a whole lot of fundamentalist Christians had a lot to say about the Lawrence fiasco, not just the FBFI board, which led to the cancellation of that invitation.
Second, when some Christian organization does something wrong, other Christians have the responsibility to speak up about it, especially when there are close ties that raise questions. Would you say that SI was wrong to publish this review of Chris’s book?
It seems to me that if those criticizing the Lawrence decision were wrong, then publishing this review and all discussion of it is wrong also.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion