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.
- 4283 views
As I recall, Chris never suggested we embrace an "anything goes" mentality with respect to music so far as the guy's theology was correct...
There may be some who will accept any and all comers who claim the Calvinist label. I don't believe that's what Chris has done, but I admit I'm not close enough to him to really know.
I've always been told to take an "eat the meat and spit out the bones" approach, when it comes to men with different theological views than my own. Yet when it comes to disputable matters like acceptable worship music or dress standards, I've been warned to avoid being led astray by even a hint of loosening. That seems inconsistent to me.
My point was that over the years I have seen many who were willing to give guys with serious, obvious, and longstanding theological and/or moral flaws just because they were Calvinists.
It is true that we all are tempted to do the same if somebody touts our favourite issue, but we need the integrity to see when these flaws in our “heroes” are disqualifying
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I got this book late Friday afternoon and read the music chapter first. By Sunday evening, I finished reading the entire body of the book, including reading the music chapter again as I successively read through the book.
My reading confirmed what I expected the book to be before I had read it. I did not find anything in the book that moved me or convinced me that I need to repent because I supposedly have been and am guilty of "sinful division" and lack of "biblical fidelity" by my supposedly being a schismatic believer because of my strongly conservative positions on worship and music.
As God directs, I anticipate responding in varying forms to the arguments made in the book.
I've been lurking in the shadows and reading the comments and the discussion has been pretty standard but I wanted to point out something that Don mentioned in one of his responses: "We are not a church."
I have often wondered if this is the crux of the issue. The passages that speak to separation envision their application in the context of the local church. They were written to local churches and to pastors of local churches. As I see it, the primary application of the doctrine of separation is in the local church.
I think things get so convoluted because we have organizations that are not churches applying the principles of separation. So what happens is position statements are written, individuals are called out, but the "teeth" of separation (which is church discipline) are never shown.
So I seek to practice and live the doctrine of separation in the context to which it is applied in scripture, my local assembly. If the church down the street or across the country, the popular preacher, or even men who I have interacted with and appreciate apply separation differently in their various local church contexts, that is something for which they will give account to the Lord. It really only concerns me and my ministry if it affects my local assembly. So while I may choose not to cooperate with Samaritans Purse or to pursue traditional worship, the fact that another church lead by another elder makes a different decision is not only something I really should not get up in arms about but further is something to be expected. Each church has their own particular context and apply their doctrine in different ways. As a Baptist, my belief in autonomy means that my primary focus should be my local assembly.
I think we would all be better suited to consider separation a local church issue that local churches apply in their various situations rather than something that organizations or universities lead the charge on. If the FBFI, the GARBC, BJU, or Cedarville make decisions that I do not agree with (and all of them have to one extent or another done things I am not comfortable with), it doesn't change my focus. My local assembly is where I need to exert my efforts.
Phil Golden
If yes, then you cannot help but be affected when Christians in other churches make unbiblical compromises of some kind, or deny the faith altogether. I don’t think any local church can exist and function without connections to other churches and ministries.
But let’s take your premise, separation, or the like, is only a local church issue. Even so, what can a church do when a leader sins in some way that requires discipline? About all that can be done is impose a program of rehabilitation and accountability if the person is repentant. If he/she isn’t, then the only option is to kick him/ her out.
So in the cases that Ron so snidely brought up, there isn’t much else that could be done. (And I think they were done in some of the cases he is alluding to).
My question stands, what else could we or should we do?
BTW, I had lunch with your dad yesterday. I always enjoy talking to him.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Scripture provides many indications that what God directed to one or more churches was authoritative and pertinent to other churches. Here are some of the passages that teach that this is true:
1 Cor. 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
1 Cor. 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Gal. 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Col. 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev. 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
Rev. 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Rev. 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev. 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
What the Spirit inspired a writer of Scripture to write to a particular church was not intended to just be for that church. This truth applies to all the teaching about separation.
- - "Romans 14 does not establish the validity of such a claim"
Larry: - "If each is to be convinced in his own mind, then it cannot be inherently immoral. The only question is how broad that category is."
My question is this: have you encountered attempts to answer that question?
Some writers state the importance of it, but I've never seen anyone answer it well.
For instance, Jamie Dunlop, in Love the Ones Who Drive You Crazy, said,
Paul begins Romans 14 by warning us not “to quarrel over opinions.” The word the ESV translates as “opinions” literally means “reasonings”—consistent with its use here as reason-based implications of Scripture. . . These disagreements are not about truths “either expressly set down in Scripture, or [that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” . . . they’re based on reasoning from those truths. About such matters we should not quarrel . . . I should note that categorizing which disagreements are legitimately “disputable” in your church is beyond the purview of this book. That would be an entire book in itself.
My question is this: have you encountered attempts to answer that question?
A few but I haven’t looked hard. It seems to take from very narrow (only what’s mentioned in the text) to really broad (whatever anyone wants to put in there). I believe the best understanding is connected to things that are reasoned about … Convinced in their mind. The mind plays a role. But it isn’t the end because a conscience can be poorly trained. There are things of a good and necessary consequence but how do we get there? Not everyone agrees on what how that works. And not everything fits in there.
As an example and Rajesh above says he has not seen any reason to repent or change, which is a common response I think. I don’t think that is quite the trump card many think it is. It might be an indication of spiritual immaturity, a hardened conscience, poor scriptural reasoning, stubbornness, pride, or perhaps other reasons. It’s is probably often not easy to tell. But Rajesh, for example, had a duty to accept in love those who differ, to be kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24). And everyone else has a duty to accept Rajesh in love and to be kind. Because no one here is the Master that we answer to. We can debate the specifics and allow for Christians to differ with us.
I think it is far less complicated than many try to make it. It send to me it is about things that God approves but some believers do not.
Don and Rajesh,
I do, of course, believe in a universal church and I believe that every principle from scripture applies to every church. However, while the universal church exists, it is the local church that applies the truths of scripture.
It becomes an issue when para-church organizations and fellowships become the determiner of how separation is to be applied. For instance, all the hubbub around Alistair Begg's advice to a grandmother. I disagreed with it. I discussed it in passing with some in my church who had a question about it. I had a more detailed discussion with my men's group whom we have taken to his Basics Conference. I stated my disagreement to them to address how it affected my local congregation. That was it. I did not feel the need to issue a public statement. Our church attended the Basic's Conference that following year and this past fall I had the opportunity to sit under Begg's teaching with a few dozen other men. In my very very limited personal interactions with Alistair, it never once crossed my mind that he needed to be confronted by me, even though I disagreed with him. His accountability is not to me... its first, to the Lord, and second to his local assembly's leadership and congregation. He also did not see fit to ask my opinion so I really didn't think it appropriate to offer it unsolicited.
But you had MacArthur issuing statements and Begg being uninvited to Shepherds conference. There were a number of articles online decrying the liberal lean of Begg. While there were a few passing comments in traditional fundamentalism, the majority of the separation statements and actions actually came from "conservative evangelicalism." (Masters, G3, Ligonier, etc.)
But as I wrestled with it, I dealt with the issue's application in my local context... and that was all that was needed to be said.
So, Don, while you asked if I believed in the Universal church... of course I do... but let me ask you... who has greater authority for the application of separation: Universities and Fellowships or the local church?
Phil Golden
Featured Resource
Discussion