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.
- 3079 views
Don,
To put a fine point on it, I was specifically highlighting that many will say separation is focused on ecclesiastical cooperation, but the facts show that it is much broader than ecclesiastical cooperation.
I only mentioned the FBFI because of the formality of their complaint and the push that is specifically gave to Dr. Jones and the Board. Yes, many people complained.
"Wrong" is a broad term. If it was focused on ecclesiastical cooperation, than having Lawrence speak would not have been wrong. The school has had all kinds of people speak that were not fundamentalist and in some cases against school values. If fundamentalism is about separating more broadly than ecclesiastical cooperation, than that should be clear.
I am not saying the Lawrence decision was right or wrong. Just that many in fundamentalism were screaming about the concerns with cooperation. But on the other hand narrowly focus that their real stance is ecclesiastical cooperation.
Because BJU is not a church, but is a non-denominational educational institution, I would not have minded hearing from people in other orbits (like, e.g. John MacArthur) while I was at BJU.
Interestingly, even back in the 80’s when I was there, at the yearly Bible Conference we always heard from speakers who were considered to be within fundamentalism, but would definitely be outside the typical IFB orbit. I think Paisley spoke every year I was there, and there were also Methodists, etc. who spoke as well. Again, while these men would be considered to be within broader fundamentalism at the time, they certainly would have had enough differences to not “do church together,” which is what I think of when I consider “ecclesiastical cooperation.”
I wouldn’t have wanted to hear Lawrence preach in chapel, but in a seminar-type setting, I think exposing students to Christians with positions outside the fundamental orbit would have been of great value in them learning to see both the similarities and the differences.
Dave Barnhart
Biblical separation is an important issue. It means we need to warn about those who promote false doctrine.
Ro 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. (NASB)
It also means we separate from others based on unrepentant conduct. I Corinthians 5.
I doubt anyone in our church will ever hear about the review of Chris Anderson's book shared at the beginning of this thread, but if they do, I will have to warn them about the author of that review. I will have to inform them about how Anderson was misrepresented and how that falls into the category of unrepentant conduct. I will also warn them about concerns about doctrine since Cauthorn has publicly questioned the teaching of the book of Psalms concerning worship.
This thread has rightly pointed out concerns about Driscal and Graham. As a pastor who wants to remain true to scripture and who understands the importance of Biblical separation, the issues with Cauthorn cannot be overlooked either.
With that in mind, we should not count him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.
2Th 3:15 And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (NASB)
Dave,
I agree. If Lawrence was going to preach from the pulpit during chapel., bible conference.... than ecclesiastical separation would be called for. The school has had people like George Bush speak to the students. They have had Christian business men speak to the business classes. They have had Christian and dnon-Christian scientists and doctors speak to the science students. Again, I am not saying they should or should not have Lawrence at the school. Just if fundamentalism really wants to say that they separate over ecclesiastical cooperation, the facts are that the separation always goes way beyond that. And that is probably the rub that is going on with Chris's book and any perceived drift.
This whole line of argument really has little to do with the point of the review or the thread. Bottom line: Chris protests that he is a fundamentalist. He has done things and said things that cause others to question the validity of his protestation.
I am sure Chris thinks he is a fundamentalist, at least by his definition. Time will tell
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
>>Bottom line: Chris protests that he is a fundamentalist. He has done things and said things that cause others to question the validity of his protestation.
I am sure Chris thinks he is a fundamentalist, at least by his definition. Time will tell<<
I think most of us have a good theoretical idea about what “true” fundamentalism looks like. However, it’s clear with the benefit of hindsight that fundamentalism today doesn’t look like the version of the 1950’s, which doesn’t really look like the version of the 1920’s. And from discussions here, it’s clear that there are plenty of differences in the way contemporary Christians define and use it. Someone I know a few years ago called it the “ecumenism of the orthodox,” which doesn’t sound too far off, at least of the 1920’s version. Men in orbits like Brandenburg’s don’t consider themselves fundamentalists either, because they hold all doctrines to be equally important (i.e there are no 2nd-tier or 3rd-tier etc. issues).
As others have pointed out, the differences on fundamentalism among today’s Christians seem to really come down to which issues fit into the set of core doctrines one must believe and practice to be an obedient Christian. While I have big differences with those who think “anything goes” in relation to music, I have a really hard time putting one’s position on which music can be used into the essential category. I haven’t read Chris’s book, and I’m sure music is just one part of it, but it does seem to be a very real dividing line for some as to whether one is a fundamentalist or not.
Dave Barnhart
Isn't the Trevor Lawrence situation an example? Lawrence's speaking to an athletic booster club is declared "wrong" by one group of Christians but deemed permissable by another group of Christians. In what appears to be a matter of contradictory consciences, one group pressures the other to yield. BTW, perhaps a clear statement on what was "wrong" would have been helpful.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
And if individuals are railing against one reviewer, are we also saying someone like Sam Horn, a faculty member at BJU, who provided a review has also drifted away from fundamentalism? I am lost in this discussion a bit. I feel like we are back in the mindset that Chris hasn't separated himself enough from certain issues. Which, from what I have read in a portion of the book, the crux of the issue.
Dave, do you have a link for the Sam Horn review?
The argument really is about definitions. Often, we've had some say, "I'm a historic fundamentalist," meaning, I would stand with those guys in the 1920s fighting liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention. I think that's basically what Chris is saying, but I could be wrong.
However, consider this question: if those 1920s fundamentalists were alive today, and had an understanding of all the history since their heyday, what position would they take towards "conservative evangelicalism"? Would they be willing to cooperate, invite them to their pulpits, publish books with them, etc, etc?
I don't know if we can answer that, and probably, depending on the individual, the reactions would differ. Nevertheless, my point is that in defining fundamentalism, one has to consider what is the fundamentalist viewpoint at any given point in history. Movements and definitions aren't static. Generally speaking, those who embraced the separatist position have reacted consistently to changes in the ecclesiastical scene.
In other words, if you had someone inviting a Trevor Lawrence to an event sponsored/connected to an erstwhile fundamentalist institution, how would you expect fundamentalists to react?
To say "I am a historic fundamentalist" and basically go along with cultural changes and trends, go soft on social and moral issues because there are "fuzzy lines" at points, or because we don't want to be so narrow-minded or rules based, or because that guy has good doctrine despite his behaviour problems, or whatever... does that suggest the so-called "historic fundamentalist" really gets what fundamentalism is all about?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
>>In other words, if you had someone inviting a Trevor Lawrence to an event sponsored/connected to an erstwhile fundamentalist institution, how would you expect fundamentalists to react?<<
You write off my fine distinction of the the purpose/venue for inviting Lawrence to speak at a fundamental college as a rabbit trail, but then you go on to show why reaction to it is at the heart of this issue.
I would expect true fundamentalists to react very differently to having Lawrence in the pulpit, particularly at a fundamental church, vs. having him speak in a non-preaching context at an institution that is, by definition, tasked with educating (not being a surrogate church to) Christians in how to live for Christ and lead in a world hostile to Him, and that would include how to deal with Christians and their viewpoints that are outside what we would consider to be part of fundamentalism.
>>To say “I am a historic fundamentalist” and basically go along with cultural changes and trends, go soft on social and moral issues because there are “fuzzy lines” at points…<<
But the “fuzzy lines” are central to the point here. I would say that the main bone of contention in defining who is in and out of fundamentalism today (for those who claim it) is taking particular non-core issues (like music) and placing them correctly in the moral or conscience bins. If scripture is not clear enough on such issues, as it is on say, the virgin birth, then I think it’s inaccurate (if maybe not quite schismatic) to take such an issue and label differences on that issue as “going soft.” If that issue cannot be connected clearly to the core beliefs and practices of Biblical Christianity, who is really the one who doesn’t get “what historical fundamentalism is all about?”
Dave Barnhart
Don,
Sam Horn’s endorsement is on the cover of the book, right next to Michael Barrett,
“This book is outstanding! Chris has written a deeply thoughtful and spiritually helpful work to help us regain the apostles' passion for biblical unity for our churches and for our times. The purity of the gospel at times demands the difficult and painful work of Spirit-directed, Bible-shaped, and truth-centered separation. But that necessary work is easily diverted from the boundaries that govern it in the New Testament. Chris speaks to this clearly, charitably, honestly, transparently, and personally. While not everyone will agree with everything in this book, everyone needs to read this book. Growing in grace demands at times the uncomfortable discipline of letting others speak carefully and transparently in urging us to think deeply from the Scriptures about a topic like this one. Chris has done so in ways that are both engaging and deeply profitable for his readers.”
Historic Fundamentalism is known primarily for its militant defense of historical and clearly declared Biblical doctrine as stated in historic Christian creeds and separation from as well as battle royal against those who deny and/or distort those doctrines.
Fundamentalism 2.0, while holding firmly to the doctrinal position and practice of historical fundamentalism, is known primarily for its practice of separation from other Christians who hold firmly to historic Christian doctrine but are viewed as not being fundamental enough for practices that are seen as not part of the Fundamentalist 2.0 identity. These practices are not consistently applied and may include things like music styles, Bible versions, eschatology, Reformed theology, dancing, wine, dress, degrees of association, worship styles......... This separation may range from denial of friendship to condemnation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Historic Fundamentalism is known primarily for its militant defense of historical and clearly declared Biblical doctrine as stated in historic Christian creeds and separation from as well as battle royal against those who deny and/or distort those doctrines.
Fundamentalism 2.0, while holding firmly to the doctrinal position and practice of historical fundamentalism, is known primarily for its practice of separation from other Christians who hold firmly to historic Christian doctrine but are viewed as not being fundamental enough for practices that are seen as not part of the Fundamentalist 2.0 identity. These practices are not consistently applied and may include things like music styles, Bible versions, eschatology, Reformed theology, dancing, wine, dress, degrees of association, worship styles......... This separation may range from denial of friendship to condemnation.
I keep reading the phrase: "Historic Fundamentalism" in this thread and yet there does not seem to be agreement about what that is. I must admit that it makes me very uncomfortable when I feel like we have to go back to history instead of to scripture in order to determine what the "right" fundamentalism is. No doubt there is value in looking at the traditions of Christianity throughout the ages, but much of what is being looked at in these threads only dates back about 100 years. Shouldn't we primarily be looking to scripture to figure out how those faithful to God conducted themselves- the Psalms?
I don’t know what historic fundamentalism is. For many of us, we see it through the lens of fundamentalist located in the SouthEast United States. My grandfather was part of the 1940’s to 1950’s fundamentalist movement in Texas with Dr. Frank Norris. That was a different flavor and they didn’t always see eye to eye. My grandfather wrote a series of articles in the 1970’s seriously criticizing an article that Dr. Wisdom from BJU wrote questioning whether some of the beliefs that some fundamentalist held to were not really fundamentals. While they respected BJU, they also didn’t see eye to eye on lots of different things. Even in the historic ages of the past there were disagreements.
Dave, your grandfather and Dr. Wisdom would probably have both accepted each other as fundamentalists, though they disagreed on points. No one says fundamentalists moved in lockstep.
But you are talking about the 1970s. Usually those who are calling themselves "historic fundamentalists" mean "just like the 1920s" (see Ron's comment above).
JD, the fundamentalists of the past no doubt thought their views were based on the Bible. They weren't relying on history.
And really, the point here is not that so-called "historic fundamentalists" define what a fundamentalist is, but that there are people who want to use the term as a self-description. Usually it means "I still want to be called a fundamentalist" (for some reason???), but "I'm not like those guys over there" (usually pointing to fundamentalists of the 70s, 80s, 90s, or the FBFI right now, or the KJV-onlyist fundamentalists right now.) For some reason they don't want to abandon the term fundamentalist, so they've invented "historic fundamentalist."
I think they should just confess that they aren't fundamentalists and are really conservative evangelicals -- but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Featured Resource
Discussion