Now, About Those Differences, Part Twelve

NickOfTimeRead Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Part 11.

Together (Only?) for the Gospel

The differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals include considerable disparity in their attitudes toward miraculous gifts. Fundamentalists are almost universally and vigorously cessationists. Conversely, many conservative evangelicals are continuationists, and those who are not can still function comfortably with the ones who are. From a fundamentalist perspective, this difference is rather a significant one.

Nevertheless, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals do hold much in common. What they hold in common is properly designated as koinonia or fellowship. It would be hypocritical to pretend that this fellowship does not exist, just as it would be hypocritical to pretend to enjoy fellowship where none existed.

Most fundamentally (the word is deliberate), both groups are united in their affirmation and exaltation of the gospel. None of the differences that we have examined to this point results in a denial of the gospel. Both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe the gospel, preach the gospel, and defend the gospel.

This mutuality in the gospel leads to a question. Since conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are united in their allegiance to the gospel, should they not be able to cooperate at the level of the gospel? To put it positively, should fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals get together for the gospel?

Frankly, I am still thinking through an answer to that question. It is not really an urgent question, though, for two reasons. On the one hand, fundamentalists do not seem to be sponsoring any enterprises that center on the gospel alone. On the other hand, conservative evangelicals (who do sponsor such enterprises) do not seem to wish for fundamentalist involvement. I know of no recognizable fundamentalist leader who has been invited to speak at T4G or The Gospel Coalition.

Consequently, I have the luxury of making a few guesses and testing a few speculations. The following paragraphs are a tentative effort to think through the problem. Should fundamentalists join conservative evangelicals in projects such as T4G and The Gospel Coalition?

A moment ago, I noted that fundamentalists are not sponsoring any endeavors that center upon the gospel alone. Why is that? The answer cannot be that fundamentalists have no concern for the gospel. Every fundamentalist I know—even the most aberrant ones—care deeply about the gospel. In fact, fundamentalists have championed the preaching and proclamation of the gospel. Their most distinctive practice (ecclesiastical separation) is an effort to maintain the purity of the gospel.

So why don’t fundamentalists have an equivalent to T4G or The Gospel Coalition? I think that it is because fundamentalists realize something, although it is so basic that they might even have trouble explaining it. It is this: while our joint profession of the gospel constitutes the most basic form of Christian fellowship, our fellowship is rarely about the gospel alone. Nor should it be.

The gospel is the atmosphere of Christianity. It is the very air that we breathe. It is assumed in and by everything that is genuinely Christian.

Viewed from this perspective, it makes as much sense to have a rally in favor of the gospel as it does to have a rally in favor of air. Do we value air? Are we committed to its centrality for breathing? Of course! Under normal circumstances, however, someone who wanted to focus simply on air would leave us all nonplussed. The same would be true of a Christian who wanted to focus just on the gospel.

Of course, not every circumstance is a normal circumstance. We actually do focus on air under two circumstances. We become deeply concerned when we see someone who needs air. We also become concerned when the air is threatened by harmful pollutants.

Our focus on the gospel is analogous. We concentrate on the gospel when we see someone who needs it (i.e., evangelism). We also concentrate on the gospel when we see someone who threatens it (i.e., polemics). These are the two circumstances under which Christians might band together for the gospel: to propagate it through evangelism, or to defend it polemically. Under neither of these circumstances are they simply together for the gospel.

The task of evangelism does not terminate in the proclamation and acceptance of the gospel. Biblical evangelism includes baptizing. It includes teaching disciples to observe all the things that Jesus has taught.

If baptism and discipleship are part of biblical evangelism, then organizing for the gospel simpliciter is really a truncation of Christian responsibility. To come together for the gospel actually requires us to come together for more than the gospel alone.

The organizers of T4G and The Gospel Coalition seem to realize this. When they get together for the gospel, they actually feature a pretty narrow slice of gospel-believing theology. In fact, whole ranges of conservative evangelicalism have been excluded.

If they simply wanted to get together for the gospel, we might expect to see an outspoken non-Calvinist or two in the lineup. We might expect to see someone who expressed questions about Lordship Salvation. We might expect to see an avowed (i.e., non-leaky) dispensationalist. We might expect to see someone whose theology was not explicitly Reformed.

After all, organizations like T4G and The Gospel Coalition feature continuationists. Their leaders are willing to work with people like Mark Driscoll and Rick Warren. Is it really believable that they cannot find a place for Christian statesmen like Charles Ryrie or John C. Whitcomb?

The leaders of T4G and The Gospel Coalition certainly make choices about acceptable boundaries. Those choices are reflected in the names that are featured on the platform. That is not wrong. In fact, recognizing boundaries is important. In view of the choices that these leaders make, however, it seems a bit facile to think that their fellowship in these meetings is determined by nothing but the gospel.

Lovers of the gospel may band together for evangelism. They may also band together to defend the gospel. The gospel requires defense when it is attacked and subverted by apostate teachers.

The gospel is not defended merely by restating it. It is not defended merely by exploring it. It is not even defended merely by replying to the arguments of those who attack the gospel. Each of these things is necessary, but even together they are inadequate as a defense for the gospel.

The defense of the gospel requires that apostate teachers be exposed and labeled. It requires that Christian recognition be withheld from them. It requires that the Lord’s people be warned against them, much as Paul did in Galatians 1:6-9 or John did in his second epistle.

In other words, being together for the gospel implies being separated unto the gospel. It implies a radical break with those who deny the gospel. Furthermore, I think it involves a refusal to follow the leadership of Christians who betray the gospel by making common cause with apostates.

This is not the time or place to develop these ideas. What I will note here is that these considerations introduce the fourth, and (in my opinion) most serious difference between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. The bone of contention between us is over the necessity of absolute ecclesiastical separation from gospel deniers.

The gospel is surely the most important thing in the world. It is the most important thing in Christianity. What is of utmost importance in the Christian faith is expressed in, assumed with, or implied by the gospel.

If we are Christians, then we live and move and have our being in the gospel. Precisely because of its sweeping importance, however, it comes into focus only when it needs to be proclaimed or when it needs to be defended. Both of these activities, however, turn out to entail more than just the recognition of the gospel message.

If my musings come anywhere close to the truth, then evidently we are never simply together for the gospel. For Christians, other factors will necessarily be at work in decisions about fellowship and cooperation. Some of these factors appear to be recognized in practice by the planners of T4G and The Gospel Coalition.

So what about fellowship and cooperation between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals? I suggest the following considerations.

First, when conservative evangelicals get together for the gospel, they appear to use more than simply the gospel as their basis of fellowship. Perhaps they are wrong to do so, but I am inclined to think that they are right. Whether it is proclaimed or defended, the gospel points beyond itself.

Second, if conservative evangelicals are right to base their cooperation upon more than the gospel, then it becomes difficult to criticize fundamentalists for doing the same thing. The factors that fundamentalists consider are sometimes different than the factors that conservative evangelicals consider. We can weigh each factor for its merits. What we cannot do, however, is to suggest that fundamentalists must strip aside everything except the gospel as a basis of cooperation—unless we are willing to demand that conservative evangelicals do this as well.

Third, if both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are weighing factors that go beyond the gospel, then an additional possibility opens up. That is the possibility that the two groups are not necessarily obligated to cooperate for the sake of the gospel. They are not obligated to cooperate in its proclamation and they are not obligated to cooperate in its defense. They will need to determine the extent of their cooperation, not simply on the basis of their mutual allegiance to the gospel, but also on the basis of the other factors that they are weighing.

Fourth, if these two groups choose not to cooperate, then their non-cooperation must not be construed as opposition. Choosing to work separately is not the same as antagonism. It is possible to love one another, be grateful for one another, pray for one another, and wish one another success without necessarily working together. Possibly (remember, I am simply testing the idea) such fraternal non-cooperation might be the best course for fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals at more than one level.

Up-Hill
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)

Does the road wind up-hill all the way?
Yes, to the very end.
Will the day’s journey take the whole long day?
From morn to night, my friend.

But is there for the night a resting-place?
A roof for when the slow dark hours begin.
May not the darkness hide it from my face?
You cannot miss that inn.

Shall I meet other wayfarers at night?
Those who have gone before.
Then must I knock, or call when just in sight?
They will not keep you standing at that door.

Shall I find comfort, travel-sore and weak?
Of labour you shall find the sum.
Will there be beds for me and all who seek?
Yea, beds for all who come.


Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Discussion

[Don] But I have often heard of “I’ve finally got saved” testimonies after a life that seemed to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit for years. I think some of these stories exhibit confusion on what salvation is.
The key word here is “seemed.” A lot of us who grew up in church are good little actors. I know I can be one when I walk in the flesh. I call this exibition “wax fruit” because it has the appearance of Spiritual fruit, but lacks real substance. Whether it’s a believer walking in the flesh or an unbeliever who is basing their conversion on a prayer, it doesn’t matter. It’s still not Spiritual produce. Judas sure looked like a convincing disciple to the other 11, didn’t he?
[Don] I think a lot of damage has been done by poor gospel presentations and giving false assurance. But please be aware that this isn’t a fundamentalist problem. I grew up in evangelicalism and it was rampant amongst the evangelicals I knew.
You’re right Don. This is why conservative evangelicals have been so unique - they have refuted both the new evangelicals AND the fundamentalists in their easy believism.

Regarding the Scriptural invitations, I don’t remember Jesus asking people to come forward on the 5th verse of Just as I Am. I think that’s the point that others are making about invitations. Invitations exist, yes, but the modern, peer pressure, guilt trip, emotional based invitation is not found in Scripture. Just to be sure, I’m not saying you’re advocating this kind of invitation.

[Joseph Leavell] The key word here is “seemed.” A lot of us who grew up in church are good little actors.
True. But I’m not talking about people like that.
[Joseph Leavell] This is why conservative evangelicals have been so unique - they have refuted both the new evangelicals AND the fundamentalists in their easy believism.
I don’t think they are unique. Many people are concerned with easy believism, including some fundamentalists you would no doubt reject. My point is simply that it isn’t a “fundamentalist problem” and it is just propaganda to rail against fundamentalism as if it is in the nature of fundamentalism to produce this problem.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Joseph Leavell] Interesting that if the CEs that put on the T4G conference actually opened it up to anyone who might be genuinely saved, they would be accused of

being a part of the eccumenical movement and they would be dismissed off handedly for that reason. …. It’s their conference - they can’t invitate anyone they wish.
Of course. Don’t misunderstand the nature of the criticism. I am against T4G because they are still ecumenists at heart, though they have made their lines of fellowship less ‘fuzzy’ than others have in the past. But they really aren’t separatists and still embrace a good deal, if not all, of New Evangelical philosophy.

The criticism of them on the Calvinist point is that they are not truly “Together for the Gospel” because they are together for the gospel plus, i.e., the Calvinist expression of the gospel. Their name is a misnomer at best and possibly disingenuous at worst.
[Joseph Leavell] Don, will you wish them (Dever, Mahaney, McArthur, Mohler, Chandler, etc.) grace, peace, and actual success for their ministries? I would hope so.
Again, Of course. They are brothers, though misguided.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson] As for Jesus and invitations: the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount is an invitation (Mt 7.21-27), also see Mt 11.28-30 and Lk 11.9-13 and Jn 6.53-58.
Nobody questions whether Jesus invited people to repent and believe. But that is 180 degrees different than the invitation system that you claim was like what Jesus used in posts 7 and 36.

Jesus never recommended, asked for, or encouraged in any way possible a physical action on behalf of any sinner as a way to obtain the benefits He promised. Yet, the invitation system does this every Sunday.

Why is this distinction so important?

Because to call on the sinner to repent and beleive is biblical. In that action they must call on the Lord and despair of any thing they can do, or possess, to get saved. They have to rely on God alone. But to ask them to physically do something to gain salvation (come forward, pray a prayer,etc.) is to teach them synergism, and to participate in a false gospel that saves not. They naturally rely on what they are doing, feeling, and experiencing.

They do something, and then “get saved.” It is false salvation, and the pews of many churches are filled with unbelievers as a result. The very men - the pastors - who should be telling them about how to look away from self, and look to the perfections of Christ for all heavenly blessing, instead tell them to look to their own decision, or coming forward. On the day of judgment, the works of such ministers will be wood, hay, and straw - no value. They have not honored Christ. Not only that, the souls of those deceived people will condemn these men forever for leading them away from Christ.

If you want to be a straight up man, please provide us with a single instance of Jesus doing anything that even remotely smacks of the present day invitation system, in which the sinner is told to do something to gain the benefits God offers the sinner. But I’m guessing you won’t.

[AndrewSuttles] Now I’ve finally got it. I’m glad Bauder has finally put his cards on the table with this post. He is not actually writing about the differences between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism at all. In fact, he seems to have an axe to grind against the TFG crowd. This really clears a lot of things up, especially as he has focused on continuationism, Calvinism, and Covenant Theology in the series - none of which are in any way characteristic of the Evangelical movement as I’ve pointed out before. Not only has Bauder mischaracterized Evangelicalism (without citing any sources to back his claims), but he has mischaracterized Fundamentalism as well, by focusing exclusively on IFBers. Of course Fundamentalist Presbyterians and Pentecostals would have differing views from the ones Bauder claims. If Bauder doesn’t like a group of Calvinistic men gathering together for gospel-centered conferences, just say so - don’t do it under a false and non-sensical pretense.
Andrew, I would suggest that you don’t get it yet.

The series has been aimed at the differences between fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals not fundamentalists and evangelicals generally. The group Kevin is referring to under the term “conservative evangelicals” is indeed more inclined toward CT, more commonly non-cessationist, etc.

The argument in this installment is, in large part, that the CE’s of T4G and Coalition do, in fact, get together for more than just the gospel, and that there is nothing wrong with this. But by the same token there is also nothing wrong with fundamentalists cooperating/getting together based on more than just the gospel.

These two paragraphs might help some…
[KBauder] The leaders of T4G and The Gospel Coalition certainly make choices about acceptable boundaries. Those choices are reflected in the names that are featured on the platform. That is not wrong. In fact, recognizing boundaries is important. In view of the choices that these leaders make, however, it seems a bit facile to think that their fellowship in these meetings is determined by nothing but the gospel.
[emphasis added]
[KBauder] If my musings come anywhere close to the truth, then evidently we are never simply together for the gospel. For Christians, other factors will necessarily be at work in decisions about fellowship and cooperation. Some of these factors appear to be recognized in practice by the planners of T4G and The Gospel Coalition.

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.

Please redirect the Invitation / Altar Calls discussion to http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-invitation-system-altar-calls] this thread ; the assorted Lordship questions to http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship] this thread , and the assorted Calvinist bashing to http://monergism.com/ this site (just kidding).

–- Fixed alter calls link ––— [Jim Peet]

"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

Don,

I use an invitation. But I do think there are unbiblical uses of it in our movement that are dangerous and wicked. I am sure the CE’s have them too. While Jesus did make calls for repentence, he never had several verses of a hymn or gospel song played “just right” to set the mood. He never tried to mapulate or psychologically wear people down. There are many in our movement that do and they need to stop because it is wicked.

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church

[Jay C.] Please redirect the Invitation / Altar Calls discussion to http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-invitation-system-altar-calls] this thread ; the assorted Lordship questions to http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship] this thread , and the assorted Calvinist bashing to http://monergism.com/ this site (just kidding).
Jay, you deserve some kind of commission from hatedispensationalism.com, oops, I mean monergism.com.

[Chip Van Emmerik]
[AndrewSuttles] Fundamentalist Presbyterians and Pentecostals
Curious, where do we find fundamental Pentecostals?
When the fundamentalist/modernist controversy was brewing, Pentecostals were on the side of the fundamentalists - for inerrancy and against evolution. Fundys and Pentecostals share a common root: Keswick-ism, Weslyian-ism, revival-ism, Dispensationalism, etc. I clearly remember the old time (Bob Jones Sr./JR Rice era) evangelists share stories from the days (1950s/1960s) when they were having weeks-long ‘meetings’ and ‘tent revivals’ at AoG churches and with AoG congregations and pastors. Many of the early fundamentalist revivalists especially had fellowship with Pentecostals including Lyman, Moody, etc. Remember, Fundamentalism was, at its beginning, an ecumenical movement.

Don -

You criticize a group of men for being too inclusive, and yet you call them ecumenicists. Good night, man, get some consistency in your argument. If you hate Calvinists, just say so.

In general, I highly doubt than any of the T4G type crowd is sitting around wringing their hands over ‘who is on my team’ OR how inclusive are the Fundamentalists going to be at their upcoming Gospel Conference.

Aaron -

I think I do get it. I don’t think Bauder is addressing conservative evangelicalism (whatever he thinks that is) at all. He is grinding his ax against the T4G crowd. We both know the things he has characterized the ECs with are not characteristic of, say the SBC, which is, by far, the largest collection of CEs. The T4G folks are a very small blip on the radar number-wise, but they get a lot of attention due to their focus on the Scriptures and Exposition and quality study materials.

No, I am not a paid sponsor of monergism.com…but could be ;)

Seriously, I thought a good laugh was necessary.

"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

We both know the things he has characterized the ECs with are not characteristic of, say the SBC, which is, by far, the largest collection of CEs. The T4G folks are a very small blip on the radar number-wise, but they get a lot of attention due to their focus on the Scriptures and Exposition and quality study materials.
I’m not aware that the SBC CE’s are all that different, but I have to admit ignorance on that point. Is Al Mohler a firm cessationist, passionate affirmer of “revivalist taboos,” energetic supporter of dispensationalism?

Either way, I explained the argument of the piece (at least the T4G related part). I don’t see how you’re getting T4G/Coalition bashing out of it.

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.

[Jay C.] Please redirect the Invitation / Altar Calls discussion to http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-invitation-system-altar-calls] this thread ; the assorted Lordship questions to http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship] this thread
Please forgive me if I am just too much of a techno-newbie to “get it,” but it seems to me like re-directing traffic to some other far-flung thread to continue an interesting discussion is the Web equivalent of saying to one’s house guest, “I am going to bed now, but you all feel free to stay and visit as long as you like.” 8-)
[Aaron Blumer] Is Al Mohler a firm cessationist, passionate affirmer of “revivalist taboos,” energetic supporter of dispensationalism?
Aaron,

I believe that Mohler is an amill. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I doubt he has many taboos, either. :)

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

[Paul J. Scharf]
[Jay C.] Please redirect the Invitation / Altar Calls discussion to http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-invitation-system-altar-calls] this thread ; the assorted Lordship questions to http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship] this thread
Please forgive me if I am just too much of a techno-newbie to “get it,” but it seems to me like re-directing traffic to some other far-flung thread to continue an interesting discussion is the Web equivalent of saying to one’s house guest, “I am going to bed now, but you all feel free to stay and visit as long as you like.” 8-)

SNIP
No, it’s an attempt to prevent thread creep. Many of us view this thread in a lineal fashion. The threads posted deal directly with “altar calls” and “Lordship” questions. SI has many rooms with various purposes. Jay was endeavoring to give directions to the proper room for in depth discussions of the two topics cited.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Rob is correct - there are at least three seperate discussions going on right now, so I’m trying to keep them all from bogging down the thread. This one is primarily for discussion of Bauder’s article(s).

"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,

Please know that I am not upset or anything — I just think most people (myself included) would not follow something like that to a new thread, unless maybe there were two guys who were really into it and wanted to spar for a while.

Personally, I would not know how the find the new threads unless I went back up to post #51 and followed it from there.

Like I said, maybe I am just technologically challenged :Sp

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry