Antidote: A Cure for a Common Problem of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism
The first thing Aaron Blumer (publisher, SharperIron) said to me when we talked about our next conference was “I’m pretty skeptical of the idea of convergence.” Convergence—the idea that fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are heading toward, or should be working toward, convergence into one movement—has certainly been what some have perceived Standpoint Conference to be about. We would argue that’s an oversimplification of what we’re about. As our last Standpoint Conference concluded, we made a conscious choice to leave previous issues behind and move on to more critical issues.
Specifically, we believe that fundamentalism and evangelicalism face similar crises. For different reasons, fundamentalism has lurking at its most conservative end some who are less concerned with doctrine than they should be. Evangelicalism has, in the mainstream, those who are also less concerned with doctrine than they should be. On the extreme right of fundamentalism, this expresses itself with a near-obsessive attention to stylistic details that distracts from doctrinal issues. On the left of evangelicalism, church growth, political activism and social influence provide similar distractions.
The alarming result is that both are disengaged from issues that have serious doctrinal consequences. Among those on the far right of fundamentalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that the larger problems of Christianity are irrelevant to them. (“All who are to the left of us are ‘liberals’ anyway.”) Among those on the left of evangelicalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that all must be well because their churches are growing numerically.
Meanwhile, battles are being waged over ideas that represent vast theological shifts. These shifts are happening not just in institutions of higher learning, but in the pews. Rob Bell preaches a form of universalism, and thousands don’t know how to respond—or feel the need to soft-pedal their rejection. N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul is only dimly understood (if at all) by the vast majority of those reading this article. The gay theologians advance their theories and they are uniformly rejected—but few realize that they are using hermeneutical models that are only slightly more radical than the ones taught in our colleges and seminaries. Ground is given, or freedom granted, on the roles of women in leadership, hermeneutics, creation models, eschatological views, all without recognizing that all of the changes are attached to theological structures that mean something and that changes in one area are harbingers of other changes to come—or changes that have already been made in theological viewpoints.
The role of writing
In the early 1900s, the spread of liberal theology drove a few men to engage in a series of lectures, papers and eventually books designed to address the crisis. The goal was to draw attention to liberal theology and renew interest in good theology. The Fundamentals, as a publication, became the foundation for all the fundamentalisms and evangelicalism we see today. They raised awareness of the issues and helped to turn back the tide of Liberalism.
We at Standpoint Conference propose to begin something similar. Over our next three conferences, we intend to address key issues that have theological implications that should alarm us. Your written contributions—or even lectures—may be helpful to us, and we desire your input.
We believe that the doctrinal drift of our times transcends the very real issues that still divide conservative evangelicals and those within the fundamentalist movement. Regardless of whether you believe in what Standpoint Conference has done in the past, or agree with its leadership team on certain particulars, you ought to care about theological purity. We challenge you to be part of the discussion.
This year’s planned topics include the importance of gender in theology and practice, the sufficiency of Scripture and modern counseling, the new mechanistic hermeneutics, responses to the gay theologians, which eschatological schemes are orthodox (and which are not), what constitutes authentic worship, the essentials of a believer’s life within the church body, the recent resurgence of various forms of inclusivism and universalism, and issues surrounding how we promote sanctification (if we can at all). The Standpoint Conference leadership is prepared to address some of these topics, if necessary; we are confident that there are persons with better knowledge of the topics who could address them more effectively. Perhaps you are one such person.
This need not be limited to the work of great doctors of theology. Pastors grounded in the Word through years of study can have equally valuable input. A detailed description of our topics for the next conference is at our website. Please consider them. In fact, we would welcome work on an entirely different topic of major doctrinal concern.
As of now, the conference has a great key-note speaker in Phil Johnson, of Grace to You. Phil is passionate about this topic and has spoken elsewhere on the need to re-emphasize sound doctrine in the church. Other speaker announcements will be made shortly. But we need the doctrinal core of the conference to come together soon—and that involves your help. Please stop by www.standpointconference.com today, look over our topics, and consider being part of the discussion.
Mike Durning Bio
Mike Durning has been the pastor at Mt. Pleasant Bible Church in Goodells, MI for more than 15 years. He attended Hyles-Anderson College, Midwestern Baptist Bible College and Bob Jones University over 8 years and somehow emerged with a mere bachelor’s degree. He lives in Goodells with his wife Terri and adult son, Ryan, and about 12 chickens that have wandered into his yard and like it better than the neighbor’s yard. Mike is flattered if you call him a “young fundamentalist,” since he is 46 and is prone to self-deception on such issues. If you see someone on the street who looks like the picture of Mike, but with gray hair, it probably is Mike.
- 84 views
[RMcCune] Local church ministries and fellowships may seem slow, fragmented and unproductive, but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good. It is not just prickly fundamentalism that decries such a view, note (OPC) D. G. Hart’s article, “Al Mohler … the Gospel Coalition,” oldlife.org.Appreciate the thoughts…. Link to that D.G. Hart article
http://oldlife.org/2011/04/21/al-mohler-the-gospel-coalition-and-me-abo…
A very interesting article and a very interesting site. Sample…
[D.G. Hart] This leaves us with the following set of memberships and identities:
The Southern Baptist Convention rejects D. G. Hart because he is Orthodox Presbyterian.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church rejects Al Mohler because he is Southern Baptist.
The ‘Gospel Coalition accepts Al Mohler and D. G. Hart no matter what their ecclesial identities (if they choose to join).
This picture would seem to make the Gospel Coalition a commendable organization in that it looks aside from seemingly petty ecclesiastical differences in order to unite seemingly conservative Protestants together in promotion of Christ as revealed in the gospel. And set of allegiances would also seem to depict the Southern Baptist Convention and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as narrower and more divisive than the simple gospel of Jesus Christ and its proclamation.
Beneath this picture’s warm and alluring hues is the downside of the Gospel Coalition, namely, that they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership (Protestant, that is). That may sound strong but ecclesiastical membership and ordination pose no apparent barrier to working with, attending, or speaking at the Coalition. The reason for setting up an organization free from denominational norms apparently is to get around the difficulty that confronts administrators at denominational seminaries and officers in churches: ecclesiastical standards are divisive and the creators of the Coalition seem to think that the gospel should not nurture such separation. For a confessional Protestant, this logic is a huge problem since confessionalists believe that the gospel not only inevitably produces good works but also is inevitably embodied in a disciplined ecclesiastical body. This is not, by the way, simply the oddity of hard-core Missouri Lutherans or vinegary Orthodox Presbyterians. It is also the outlook of Southern Baptist institutions like Southern Seminary (such as I understand 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.
Good article, and very helpful comments. I realize that I am pretty much out of my league here, as my relationships and experiences do not include many of the people, conferences, and organizations mentioned in this thread.
Perhaps I may comment on a couple of matters. It became obvious to me some years back that some who Fundamentalists labeled “Neoevangelical” were stronger in contending for sound Biblical doctrine than many Fundamentalists, and were also speaking out boldly against compromising neoevangelicalism. Their stand produced a defacto separation from both apostasy and compromised evangelicalism. They had become real leaders in contending for the faith. It represented a Biblical, principled stand, not a separation over associations, relationships and personalities so much as separation because of truth. Truth unites, and truth divides. When truth is clearly and boldly proclaimed, people start lining up on either side of the truth. This, in my opinion, is why many “young fundamentalists” identify to a degree with strong “conservative evangelicals.” They see them taking a stand for truth that is principled and effective. They see them making a difference on the national scene, whereas fundamentalists have largely retreated to their own world to contend among themselves without significant impact beyond their own spheres of influence. It would appear that conservative evangelicals have become the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century, taking the kind of national stand that fundamentalists did in the first half of the twentieth century.
As to interdenominationalism, it seems to me that it contains both strengths and weaknesses. The strength is that it recognizes that the true Body of Christ crosses denominational lines, and the battle for Biblical fidelity is a shared battle with all Bible-beliving Christians. Thus, some conferences and publications should, and indeed must, cross denominational lines to unite forces and oppose a common enemy. The weakness becomes apparent whenever we try to institutionalize nondenominationalism. It doesn’t work. Far better to maintain denominational distinctives for the ongoing work of local churches, and leave the interdenominationalisn for occasional conferences and publications. We should be able to cross denominational lines for a common appreciation and defense of the Gospel. We cannot remain in a nondenominational mindset for long. It will always gradually move to a pragmatic denominationalism, even if it maintains the label nondenominational. The demands of partnership in church planting and ministerial training require it to do so.
Perhaps I may comment on a couple of matters. It became obvious to me some years back that some who Fundamentalists labeled “Neoevangelical” were stronger in contending for sound Biblical doctrine than many Fundamentalists, and were also speaking out boldly against compromising neoevangelicalism. Their stand produced a defacto separation from both apostasy and compromised evangelicalism. They had become real leaders in contending for the faith. It represented a Biblical, principled stand, not a separation over associations, relationships and personalities so much as separation because of truth. Truth unites, and truth divides. When truth is clearly and boldly proclaimed, people start lining up on either side of the truth. This, in my opinion, is why many “young fundamentalists” identify to a degree with strong “conservative evangelicals.” They see them taking a stand for truth that is principled and effective. They see them making a difference on the national scene, whereas fundamentalists have largely retreated to their own world to contend among themselves without significant impact beyond their own spheres of influence. It would appear that conservative evangelicals have become the fundamentalists of the twenty-first century, taking the kind of national stand that fundamentalists did in the first half of the twentieth century.
As to interdenominationalism, it seems to me that it contains both strengths and weaknesses. The strength is that it recognizes that the true Body of Christ crosses denominational lines, and the battle for Biblical fidelity is a shared battle with all Bible-beliving Christians. Thus, some conferences and publications should, and indeed must, cross denominational lines to unite forces and oppose a common enemy. The weakness becomes apparent whenever we try to institutionalize nondenominationalism. It doesn’t work. Far better to maintain denominational distinctives for the ongoing work of local churches, and leave the interdenominationalisn for occasional conferences and publications. We should be able to cross denominational lines for a common appreciation and defense of the Gospel. We cannot remain in a nondenominational mindset for long. It will always gradually move to a pragmatic denominationalism, even if it maintains the label nondenominational. The demands of partnership in church planting and ministerial training require it to do so.
G. N. Barkman
[Rolland McCune] I suppose, given the interdenominational spread of the liberal cancer, the battle would be fought in that framework. But the biblical/doctrinal base of such is far too flat and thin. To be workable, it must have a minimal, lowest common denominator basis of truth…“Lowest common denominator basis of truth” is a derogatory way of expressing a Bible-based teaching on unity.
[Rolland McCune] …but that view is usually predicated on the notion that some biblical convictions are are considered negotiable, marginal and ancillary to a greater good…Some are.
[Rolland McCune] I am not interested in going over all the current controversies; I am only attempting to enunciate a biblical principle that gets lost in the emotionalism, pietism, idealism, worries and the like that rise to the fore.The biblical principle you are trying to enunciate is only part of the story.
The endless separation from one another over every little thing is not a help to Fundamentalism; it is its bane. It is also unbiblical:
There is a doctrine of unity taught in Scripture, despite the fact you will seek for it in vain among the doctrinal statements of most institutions and churches.
Unity is to be presumed and expected of all who show certain doctrinal formations in common (Eph. 4:2-6, for example). It is part of the much-ignored doctrine of Unity (I said “unity”, not ecumenism, and not compromise). This unity that is in most cases demanded of us must not just be merely ideological (as in “I admit those crazy folks in the church next door are brothers in Christ, but…”), but must in some fashion be visibly demonstrated before the world (John 17:21-23), though I don’t think it needs to be institutional. Only when certain criteria are met does the doctrine of separation hold sway over the presumed default position of unity (I would list the verses for separation, but it would be preaching to the choir on a Fundy site). Beyond the doctrinal formations held in common (Eph. 4:2-6), and clearly revealed moral instructions (Gal. 5:19-21, for example) there can be liberty of belief and practice in many areas. Even Paul, granted near-limitless proclamatory power through his Apostleship, doesn’t require agreement with himself on everything (Rom. 14:1-6), and URGES unity, even within the local church, where there are such disagreements.
Ancillary issues exist, but they are not a basis for separation. They are teaching issues.
This Hyper-Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things great and small before unity is granted is not separation; it is arrogance.
Unity is not granted. Unity is presumed among believers. Separation is regretfully required in some circumstances as they arise.
Too many Fundamentalists reverse this flow, practicing automatic separation (and skepticism), and require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.
[Rolland McCune] When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernibleWell, I agree with you here somewhat. But…
1). Some CE’s have made these declarations, and are attempting to observe them.
2). Some have not. I think the CE’s are where Fundamentalists were in the 1920’s – 1940’s. Their ideas on separation are still in formation. Hopefully they will not overbalance as some Fundamentalists have. We have not been especially helpful to them; our example of the separation mindset has been rather dark.
3). Some of that which Fundies perceive as being lack of separation among CE’s is a difference of definition of what is essential. I’m not at all claiming that their definition is right. In fact, in many cases, I think it IS soft. But as you can see above, I think too many Fundamentalists separate over too much.
[Rolland McCune] When all is said and done the often unmentioned “dividing line” is still ecclesiastical separation. It would certainly clear the air if the CEs would openly declare their historical errors and that they do not /will not have fellowship with the apostasy or those that maintain connections and/or sympathies with it, however delicately worded. I have not seen such declarations nor are they readily empirically discernibleSo well said, Dr. McCune.
But who has shown the way forward? Who has done the work in the Scriptures to show us that ecclesiastical separation, by which we really mean secondary separation, is a practice derived from the text of God and is not the imposition of men? Dr. Bauder has attempted through a message at a recent conference, but with a suspect application of 2 John 11. Are there no other Scriptures to explain such a massive issue as ecclesiastical separation? Perhaps the reason it is so often unmentioned, as you rightly say, is that ecclesiastical separation as presently defined is biblically indefensible. Just to be clear, I’m not speaking of personal separation as per 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11.
For when our Lord enjoins us to “love one another,” but men yet say we should separate from a brother in Christ because of x, y and z, how can the souls of tender sheep be anything but mislead away from obeying Christ’s command to “love one another?”
Who can bring the Word of God to us, rightly interpreted, and say, “this brother must be separated from because of X”? If the man is to be separated from, shall we yet grant him fellowship status (“a brother in Christ”) while telling others he is dangerous and to be separated from? Prevarication on these matters is simply worldly pragmatism. Those led by the Spirit don’t separate from brothers; they lay down their lives “for the brethren” (1 John 3:16). We love, because He first loved us.
Let’s be discerning. Some false teaching requires expulsion (1 Tim. 1:20), while some false teaching is far less virulent and only requires reproof without expulsion (1 Tim. 1:3-7).
No, the way forward is not to speak out of both sides of our mouths, but to be more clear and more delineated, more biblical. That is why I appreciate D.G. Hart’s clear thinking so much. For he is willing to point out what you rightly allude to - that the real doctrines to be dealt with here are ecclesiological, not soteriological.
Joel T:
I like the optimistic tone of your reply; pass it on.
It may well be that there is a “host of conservative evangelicals” whose faces are turning our way, even a
“silent majority” perhaps. You may have “heard” of many who are dissatisfied with the old New Evangelicalism and now perceive the deterioration of the whole experiment and how it has morphed into something that Carl Henry, et al., spent their cerebral energies combating. From my perspective in retirement in SW Florida, I neither hear nor see in writing anything like a groundswell. These people need to speak out and be quoted, put their new convictions in print preferably. Again, the dividing line is ecclesiastical separation, and is it asking too much for a clear, biblical position regarding ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are connected and/or sympathetic with elements of the apostasy?
You will recall that in calling the roll in theology class, someone would say of an absent student, “he’s coming,” or “he’s on his way.” To which I would often reply, “so is Christmas.” I.e., he has to show the whites of his eyes and warm the seat to be counted .
RDM
I like the optimistic tone of your reply; pass it on.
It may well be that there is a “host of conservative evangelicals” whose faces are turning our way, even a
“silent majority” perhaps. You may have “heard” of many who are dissatisfied with the old New Evangelicalism and now perceive the deterioration of the whole experiment and how it has morphed into something that Carl Henry, et al., spent their cerebral energies combating. From my perspective in retirement in SW Florida, I neither hear nor see in writing anything like a groundswell. These people need to speak out and be quoted, put their new convictions in print preferably. Again, the dividing line is ecclesiastical separation, and is it asking too much for a clear, biblical position regarding ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are connected and/or sympathetic with elements of the apostasy?
You will recall that in calling the roll in theology class, someone would say of an absent student, “he’s coming,” or “he’s on his way.” To which I would often reply, “so is Christmas.” I.e., he has to show the whites of his eyes and warm the seat to be counted .
RDM
Rolland McCune
Mike:
A summary response to # 35:
1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.
2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?
3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”
4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.
RDM
A summary response to # 35:
1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.
2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?
3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”
4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.
RDM
Rolland McCune
Ted:
In reference to #36
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation). Unless I totally misread him, that was D. G. Hart’s problem with being in the Gospel Coalition with Al Mohler, et al. Now we can quibble over whether Hart was exercising separation or just choosing non-cooperation in terms of the GC. I personally would see building skyscrapers of different meaning between the two thoughts as nonsense.
Fundamentalists have on numerous occasions made the case for separation from a Chrisltian brother but they have always been met with a “dead on arrival,” or as you put it “biblically indefensible,” rejection. But these exegetical expositions have been clear, delineated and biblical, to say nothing of loving and concerned. For some of us a little longer in the tooth, that is exasperating. It is probably also for your side of the fence. In my opinion, it is a stand-off by this time and is incapable of being resolved, and has historically (and biblically) resulted in new and/or different formations of carrying out Gospel work.
But the dichotomy between love, gentleness, tenderness, kindness, et al. and forcefulness, straight talk, rebuke, separation and even excommunition/excision is false. Two of the best examples are Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul.
RDM
In reference to #36
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation). Unless I totally misread him, that was D. G. Hart’s problem with being in the Gospel Coalition with Al Mohler, et al. Now we can quibble over whether Hart was exercising separation or just choosing non-cooperation in terms of the GC. I personally would see building skyscrapers of different meaning between the two thoughts as nonsense.
Fundamentalists have on numerous occasions made the case for separation from a Chrisltian brother but they have always been met with a “dead on arrival,” or as you put it “biblically indefensible,” rejection. But these exegetical expositions have been clear, delineated and biblical, to say nothing of loving and concerned. For some of us a little longer in the tooth, that is exasperating. It is probably also for your side of the fence. In my opinion, it is a stand-off by this time and is incapable of being resolved, and has historically (and biblically) resulted in new and/or different formations of carrying out Gospel work.
But the dichotomy between love, gentleness, tenderness, kindness, et al. and forcefulness, straight talk, rebuke, separation and even excommunition/excision is false. Two of the best examples are Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul.
RDM
Rolland McCune
[Rolland McCune]Dr. McCune, how do you separate from a brother, warn others to do likewise, and lay down your life for him at the same time (1 John 3:16)? If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but secondary separation.
I guess I don’t share your angst over what I would consider a biblical obligation to separate from a brother over an “X” [biblical] reason. Nor do I comprehend the dichotomy between loving another and carrying out what I see as a clear command to separate from a brother for the sake of loyalty to God and biblical truth (my context was ecclelsiastical separation).
I think it would be healthy if we stopped thinking in terms of conservative and liberal, much like we think in terms of American politics. In Mike’s initial post he says that those who are “more conservative” are also those who are less concerned with doctrine. Yet being less concerned with doctrine is not a quality of conservatives but liberals. I think that they are more culturally conservative perhaps in that they don’t want to see culture remain the same as it was in generations gone by. But I don’t think we can say that they are more conservative Biblically than someone who is seriously attached to doctrine.
I’d like to see us begin to separate out cultural conservatism from Biblical conservatism. One way we can do that is to end the practice of calling our music conservative. We shouldn’t frame the discussion as conservative vs. contemporary. In the end, conservative isn’t Biblical anyway.
Matt
I’d like to see us begin to separate out cultural conservatism from Biblical conservatism. One way we can do that is to end the practice of calling our music conservative. We shouldn’t frame the discussion as conservative vs. contemporary. In the end, conservative isn’t Biblical anyway.
Matt
[Rolland McCune] 1. A “minimal” or “lowest common denominator basis of truth” refers to the number of articles that form the “basis” not the intrinsic worth or value of any one truth.My apologies. If you were not using it in a derogatory fashion, then it is not such here. I have heard some use the term in derogatory fashion.
[Rolland McCune] 2. What “biblical convictions” are truly negotiable, and why only them?Well, that’s a whole new post – perhaps even an article. What are the Fundamentals? By what Biblical criteria can they be distinguished from other, “lesser” teachings? Does such a hierarchy exist? And that is an article I’ve been toying with for years. Made good progress last August. Hope to finish writing it soon. But my post was not about what is negotiable. My post was about the basis of unity. Paul gives it in Eph. 4:2-6.
[Rolland McCune] 3. I find a little too much hyperbole that gets in the way, to wit, “endless separation from one another over every little thing,” “this Hyper Fundamentalism that requires agreement on all things … is arrogance,” or “too many Fundamentalists … require one to successfully answer dozens of questions before unity is granted.” If the above group or thinking is any summary of what the Standpoint Conference is up against, their opposition is completely unworthy of you. Fundamentalists that I know have long since been content to “hit them with a big chunk of silence.”I’m sorry that I did not have precise numbers at hand. I find this lack of omniscience troubling at times. :)
Hyperbole can be used to make points. Christ Himself does so. My imprecision does not eviscerate my point, I hope.
[Rolland McCune] 4. I share your concerns about unity but am unsure of what is meant by the “presumed default position [of unitiy] ” vis-a-vis ecclesiastical separation. Wouldn’t you agree that (biblical) truth itself is the presumed default position in all relationships—personal,civil, and ecclesial (which was the issue in my article)? I would prefer to say that unity and separation are both “presumed” and “required” by truth, and the fortunes of truth govern both. But maybe I quibble.What I’m trying to say is this: Paul’s discussion in Ephesians frequently returns to the unity theme. There is an assumption that all believers will be unified. Eph. 4:2-6 outline the beliefs (common spiritual possession) of all believers, and discusses it in terms of unity. This is why I call Unity the default position. When I determine someone else is a true believer, I should gravitate toward feeling, acting, and practicing unity with them.
However, there are circumstances (most notably and indisputably, heretical teaching and unrepentant disobedience) that require a different reaction to this person who is a believer than the default unity position.
I argue that too many Fundamentalist reverse this order. They behave as though the assumption should be that a person is a heretic or disobedient believer unless they find evidence to the contrary. Nobody is granted “unity” status until they have proven themselves to be virtually identical. I know this is true, because I have talked to pastors who admit that this was their attitude until they studied through Ephesians.
And that is why I referred to it as arrogance. Those who require others to be just like them before granting them the treatment and love owed to all fellow believers are setting their standard higher than God has set it.
I fail to see how any Fundamentalist could appreciate D. G. Hart on this issue. Hart is an OPC scholar who really thinks that Old Side Presbyterianism had it right and that America was ruined by revivalism — not just the Finney-esque 2GA revivalism, but even the George Whitefield 1GA revivalism. He sees them as moving the heart of American piety outside the institutional church, where it belongs.
Notice that his objection to TGC is that it brings together people who couldn’t be in the same church communion. In other words, he rejects all sorts of interdenominational fellowship. That would include Fundamentalism as well, to the extent that Fundamentalism is (theoretically) an interdenominational reaction against modernism, and not just a homogenous Baptist group. For Hart, there’s only one level of fellowship - institutional church. That might get modified a bit for something like the NAPARC denominations, that all share the same confession of faith, but it certainly doesn’t extend to cross-denominational fellowships. That’s how he can say that these men’s participation in TGC entails a stance that “they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership.” Well, I’m comfortable saying that the gospel is not independent of every institutional church, but it is independent of any single one. If my own beloved denomination bit the dust, it wouldn’t be the end of the gospel.
Notice that his objection to TGC is that it brings together people who couldn’t be in the same church communion. In other words, he rejects all sorts of interdenominational fellowship. That would include Fundamentalism as well, to the extent that Fundamentalism is (theoretically) an interdenominational reaction against modernism, and not just a homogenous Baptist group. For Hart, there’s only one level of fellowship - institutional church. That might get modified a bit for something like the NAPARC denominations, that all share the same confession of faith, but it certainly doesn’t extend to cross-denominational fellowships. That’s how he can say that these men’s participation in TGC entails a stance that “they run their affairs as if the church does not matter, as if the gospel is independent of every church affiliation and membership.” Well, I’m comfortable saying that the gospel is not independent of every institutional church, but it is independent of any single one. If my own beloved denomination bit the dust, it wouldn’t be the end of the gospel.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I fail to see how any Fundamentalist could appreciate D. G. Hart on this issue.Is this because you don’t fully appreciate fundamentalists? :) … I don’t think I am alone in agreeing with Hart on the issues you mention, at least if I understand them/him. Many of us “fundamentalists” are not enthralled with interdenominationalism or extra-local church organizations. Or perhaps I am not a fundamentalist.
Thanks Mike for your comments. Hopefully, this will help move the discussion forward a little. I know we have conversed about this a bit before, but I think it was left a bit open, or at least with me being unclear about your understanding.
BTW, as perhaps a side point, I think the hyperbole probably hinders your point (though “eviscerate” may be too strong), because it seems to elicit an emotional response (rather than an carefully considered one) and because it bases a whole position on rejecting an extreme that most people reject anyway. In other words that kind of complaint does not distinguish your position from most other positions. There is a lot of room between no separation at all and separation over every little thing, and I imagine that is probably where most people are. I think hyperbole is helpful at times, but not all the time.
I think there are some who want to limit “one faith” to the bare essentials of the Christian faith—the gospel. But I wonder how that is justified? How do we define “faith” in that passage?
I think earlier I made the point that in John 17 unity is visible (as you say above). And you and I have nothing “visible” that I know of, no matter how much we agree on anything (and I imagine that we agree on quite a bit). So do you and I have unity? And since the obvious answer seems to be no, are we required by Scripture to pursue it? What would that look like between here and Goodells? I can tell my church, that we have unity with Mike and the gang up in Goodells, and there will be a collective, “What? Who? Where is Goodells?” I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I really don’t understand what unity is if you and I have it? Or me and Bob Hayton (another guy that I think I interacted with a bit on this). If unity is visible, and there is nothing visible, do we really have unity?
I also am curious as to when one crosses the line of “hyper-fundamentalist”? What would one have to separate over to be one?
Is there a category in your paradigm for non-cooperation of some sort while still maintaining “unity” according to your definition?
[Mike Durning] “Lowest common denominator basis of truth” is a derogatory way of expressing a Bible-based teaching on unity.Why is your view of unity is “Bible-based” while Dr. McCune’s is not. I think that would be a worthy topic for a post. Where has he gone afoul of the Bible? Where/how does the Bible delineate between central doctrines and ancillary or non-essential doctrines? Where does the Bible give us the basis for determining these things?
The endless separation from one another over every little thing is not a help to Fundamentalism; it is its bane. It is also unbiblical:Has Dr. McCune, or anyone here, suggested “endless separation over every little thing”? I am wondering who this is a response to.
BTW, as perhaps a side point, I think the hyperbole probably hinders your point (though “eviscerate” may be too strong), because it seems to elicit an emotional response (rather than an carefully considered one) and because it bases a whole position on rejecting an extreme that most people reject anyway. In other words that kind of complaint does not distinguish your position from most other positions. There is a lot of room between no separation at all and separation over every little thing, and I imagine that is probably where most people are. I think hyperbole is helpful at times, but not all the time.
There is a doctrine of unity taught in Scripture, despite the fact you will seek for it in vain among the doctrinal statements of most institutions and churches.One reason for a doctrinal statement is to outline the basis for unity. As you recall, unity in Eph 4 is based on sharing “one faith,” or a belief. The doctrinal statement of a church or organization sets out the “one faith” that must be shared for unity. When we disagree on what that “one faith” is, we cannot have unity or fellowship in those areas.
I think there are some who want to limit “one faith” to the bare essentials of the Christian faith—the gospel. But I wonder how that is justified? How do we define “faith” in that passage?
This unity that is in most cases demanded of us … must in some fashion be visibly demonstrated before the world (John 17:21-23).I think this is a key thing that I asked about earlier, that I missed your response to. What is unity if you and I have it?
I think earlier I made the point that in John 17 unity is visible (as you say above). And you and I have nothing “visible” that I know of, no matter how much we agree on anything (and I imagine that we agree on quite a bit). So do you and I have unity? And since the obvious answer seems to be no, are we required by Scripture to pursue it? What would that look like between here and Goodells? I can tell my church, that we have unity with Mike and the gang up in Goodells, and there will be a collective, “What? Who? Where is Goodells?” I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I really don’t understand what unity is if you and I have it? Or me and Bob Hayton (another guy that I think I interacted with a bit on this). If unity is visible, and there is nothing visible, do we really have unity?
Ancillary issues exist, but they are not a basis for separation.Ancillary to what? Again, this is a key question. The fact that we believe the same gospel does not mean we can plant a church together. There are some “ancillary” issues that require separation at some level. For instance, the issue of baptism explains why there is a Baptist church on one corner and a Presbyterian church on another. The respective doctrinal statements outline the basis for unity with each church and separation from the other. And there is visible disunity (two buildings, several pastors, two meetings, two budgets, etc.) that is irreconcilable unless one side (or both) gives us core biblical convictions since we as Baptists say (or at least should say) that the Presbyterians are disobedient to the command to be baptized, and they say that about us as Baptists. This is a very practical and common scenario. Both Baptists and Presbyterians believe there is something “essential” about baptism to have unity with a church. It’s just the reality of disagreement past the “lowest common denominator.”
Some of that which Fundies perceive as being lack of separation among CE’s is a difference of definition of what is essential.What is the difference between essential and ancillary, or perhaps to make the comparison parallel, between “non-essential” and ancillary. Here, you say the perception of a lack of separation is over what CEs consider “non-essential,” whereas with the “hyper-fundamentalists” (as you called them) it was about what was “ancillary.” How would you characterize this difference? Am I correct in understanding that you have more tolerance for CEs who have a different definition of what is essential than hyper-fundamentalists do?
I also am curious as to when one crosses the line of “hyper-fundamentalist”? What would one have to separate over to be one?
Is there a category in your paradigm for non-cooperation of some sort while still maintaining “unity” according to your definition?
There is an assumption that all believers will be unified.I think the assumption in Ephesians 4 deals with believers at Ephesus. I think it was you who tried to make a universal case earlier, but I was not convinced by it, mostly because I don’t know that Paul would have had that in view. I don’t even know what it means or what it would look like now, much less in the first century. Again, remember that unity is “visible” (according to both you and me). So what was visible between the church at Ephesus and say Philippi, Galatia, Rome, or anywhere else?
[Larry] Thanks Mike for your comments. Hopefully, this will help move the discussion forward a little. I know we have conversed about this a bit before, but I think it was left a bit open, or at least with me being unclear about your understanding.Larry, thanks for the great questions. I like them.
The comments, however, were frustrating to me. But that’s because I’m not communicating clearly enough, apparently.
My sermon for next Sunday is finished (3 AM this morning). I have some errands to run today. I hope to write a lengthy response to your questions and comments by late tonight.
I’ll try not to leave anything hanging.
Mike
No rush. I will look forward to it. Sorry about frustrating you with my comments. Hopefully, you will give me a chance to clarify.
Discussion