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
Ted:
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God. The way you have framed the issue in your mind seems like any biblical resolution is the eternally elusive holy grail. Your reconciliation of the problem is to deny the problem by denying one of the horns of the dilemma, i.e., any biblical warrant to ecclesiastically separate from a Christian brother. I resolve the issue by denying the incompatibility/dilemma in the first place. So where are we?
To me, separation from Christian brothers (by any other name such as withdrawal,non-cooperation, probation, et al.) is not intrinsically different from the way we approach any Christian in any context of his disobedience to the commands of Christ, be it organizationally/institutionally ecclesial, local church, home and the family, personal, etc.). By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing. Organizational separation, in my view, definitely does not entail personal animosity or any denial to do what is best for the other, the essence of biblical love. I confess that I frankly don’t comprehend it. Maybe I am oblivious to the obvious; others must surely have a better answer.
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God. The way you have framed the issue in your mind seems like any biblical resolution is the eternally elusive holy grail. Your reconciliation of the problem is to deny the problem by denying one of the horns of the dilemma, i.e., any biblical warrant to ecclesiastically separate from a Christian brother. I resolve the issue by denying the incompatibility/dilemma in the first place. So where are we?
To me, separation from Christian brothers (by any other name such as withdrawal,non-cooperation, probation, et al.) is not intrinsically different from the way we approach any Christian in any context of his disobedience to the commands of Christ, be it organizationally/institutionally ecclesial, local church, home and the family, personal, etc.). By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing. Organizational separation, in my view, definitely does not entail personal animosity or any denial to do what is best for the other, the essence of biblical love. I confess that I frankly don’t comprehend it. Maybe I am oblivious to the obvious; others must surely have a better answer.
Rolland McCune
[Ted Bigelow] 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.Ted, this seems like a false dichotomy and also seems like it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Dying for another person doesn’t mean that you’re in favor of everything they’ve done.
The secondary separation question is - is it biblically justified to withdraw from someone who is affiliated with someone else who is in error? I think the answer is yes, and I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.
"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
[Rolland McCune] Ted:Well, when you frame it that way, who could disagree ;)
I don’t think I can solve your dilemma of the supposed incompatibility of Christian love and loving obedience to a command of God.
But that’s not the dilemma I posed. The dilemma I posed is that of claiming secondary separation is compatible with 1 John 3:16. So, using your words, where is the command of God to separate from a brother? Again, I’m not discussing what is meant to happen within a church with a disobedient member for a season (1 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11), but the purview of this discussion - secondary separation.
By the rubrics of your position, there seems to be no room for genuine confrontation, chastening, or any active remedial negativism because one could never “lay down his life” in Christian love in so doing.Hardly. In my posts I queried, “If you are not willing to label him apostate, on what basis do you warn others not to have gospel fellowship with that person?” My words do not call for less but better confrontation, as well as far more clarity.
To claim someone should who is a brother can be best loved by separating from him is prevaricating, IMO. In other words, I’m claiming the secondary separation position is weak-kneed.
[Ted Bigelow]If I may put on my Mouse ears hat from Disneyland, I will give an opinion here.[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).
IMO Acts 20:17-38 is the heart of Fundamentalism. Passages such as 2 Cor.6:11-18; are clear on our separation from unbelievers. However Acts 20 is an admonition that appears to have both unbelievers and believers in view when it warns of protecting the flock. For this reason we separate from Charismatic and Pentecostal believers as their view of the continuation of revelation and sanctification is a danger to the truth of God and other believers.
There are others who may be Christian and saved but pose a threat to the local assemblies. A present example is Harold Camping and his followers who have predicted the Lord’s return to be on May 21st. He and a few other Reformed teachers (Very small group) also teach that we have no certainty or assurance of salvation as such assurance cannot be of faith but of pride and therefore is human works which is contrary to faith alone. They say we can only plead “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner” and hope we are among the elect. These may very well be brothers in Christ but very confused. Their confusion is a danger to the flock. There are numerous other major deviations from truth that may make it necessary to separate from brothers in Christ. I would place those in the KJVO movement as among those.
As to how separation from brothers in Christ fits in with a duty to lay down our lives for the brethren? It is a necessary part of being willing to lay down our lives for the protection of the flock. We must be faithful to the God no matter who is dangerously attacking the flock. God’s truth guides us as to who is to be protected and who are the dangerous attackers. When the Anabaptists were attacked by the Reformers, they probably were being attacked by some brothers in Christ. They laid down their lives for the innocent brethren who stood for more complete truth. The Reformed brethren who attacked became murderers upholding error, though possibly Christian. IMO the duty to love one group would outweigh any duty to the dangerous brethren. Or one could say the duty to one is far greater than any duty owed to the other.
Separation cannot be divided into just first and secondary separation with a duty to one but not the other. Separation is of various degrees depending on the reason, danger, and specific circumstances. I may separate with all ministry or public entanglements from a Charismatic but have some degree of personal Christian fellowship with some. I may have lunch and Christian fellowship with an Assembly of God pastor. I would never be entangled in ministry or public entanglement with him as it would be dangerous to Christians that may be susceptible to his false doctrine.
The Fundamentalist is one that takes the duty to discern and separate as serious and diligently endeavors to practice such protection.
What some are calling Conservative Evangelicals take various stances toward separation but none are as diligent as most all who accept the Fundamentalist label. As I have said before it is a pool filled with swimmers doing various strokes and going in different directions. IMO all are inconsistent and some advocate almost no separation at all. They may select certain dangers such as inerrancy or the New Perspectives approach and defend well against them. However, they overlook many other dangers and are ambivalent toward them.
This is why I am a Fundamentalist and am willing to accept the label even though it is a label often applied to and accepted by extremists such as the KJVO group. All Conservative Evangelicals do not want the Fundamentalist label and some have shown disdain for the label and those who accept it and practice diligence in protecting the flock.
[Jay C.]Hi Jay,[Ted Bigelow] 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.Ted, this seems like a false dichotomy and also seems like it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Dying for another person doesn’t mean that you’re in favor of everything they’ve done.
The secondary separation question is - is it biblically justified to withdraw from someone who is affiliated with someone else who is in error? I think the answer is yes, and I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.
I’m behind the curve on this one bro… FBF?
My response to you is along the lines of my response to Dr. McCune. If you believe the person (or group) is in error, then don’t render judgments of separation while still regarding the person a brother in Christ.
Go to those you believe in error. Confront them with an open ear and open heart. Love them biblically in this way. Instruct them humbly on their error. Give them some time to absorb what is said.
But if error remains that is serious enough for separation, then declare their error as apostasy from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This the NT way. Don’t prevaricate and say they are brothers who so seriously compromise with the faith that they must be separated from. If they deny the NT faith of Jesus and the apostles then let them know where they do it, and if impenitent, then let others know as well. Then let the label (and judgment) of “apostate” be attached to them, but not the label “brother.”
You and I are to love our brothers “to the extent” of laying down our lives for each other. 1 John 3:16 is the extent to which genuine Christian love cares for all those who are in Christ. By virtue of God’s grace in your life, I am obligated to love you to that extent. To do less is sin.
Now if I consider you a brother in Christ, but also claim that I and others must separate from you, how does that “love you to that extent?” - that of being willing to even die for you? Secondary separation is not love but judgment. (Again, we’re talking secondary separation here, not that which our Lord tells us to do in the local church with a disobedient brother, 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11).
[Jay C.] I have advocated in the past that Fundamentalists should begin withdrawing from the FBF when they sent their leaders to preach and teach at Hammond a few months ago.When did the FBF ever do this, let alone a few months ago? Individuals who are members of the FBF may have taught at Hammond, but they did so on their own initiative, not at the behest of the FBF, as far as I know.
Be careful how you state things!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yes, I was referring to the FBF…a little blast from the past here:
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
Subsequent discussion at ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/13794#comment-13794] Given the long track record of doctrinal and moral messes at First Baptist of Hammond, there is no justification for ministerial cooperation… “
It’s also why I was so concerned about the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9858] Danny Sweatt issue last year. I see a persistent and ongoing toleration of unbiblical positions in that fellowship.
As to the thrust of your question - The distinction is that I see formal separation as a declaration that this person is no longer credible as a Christian because of their repeated and ongoing tolerations of error, and I cannot and will not have ‘fellowship’ with someone who is claiming Christianity and at the same time obviously in error or in sin.
The question is - when do we do that with organizations? Or can we even do that? My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.
Clear as mud?
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
Subsequent discussion at ” http://sharperiron.org/comment/13794#comment-13794] Given the long track record of doctrinal and moral messes at First Baptist of Hammond, there is no justification for ministerial cooperation… “
It’s also why I was so concerned about the http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=9858] Danny Sweatt issue last year. I see a persistent and ongoing toleration of unbiblical positions in that fellowship.
As to the thrust of your question - The distinction is that I see formal separation as a declaration that this person is no longer credible as a Christian because of their repeated and ongoing tolerations of error, and I cannot and will not have ‘fellowship’ with someone who is claiming Christianity and at the same time obviously in error or in sin.
The question is - when do we do that with organizations? Or can we even do that? My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.
Clear as mud?
"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
Ted -
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
See also
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
[I John 4:7-12] God Is Love-edit-
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
See also
[John 15:7-17] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.Note the conditional phrase in v. 14 - “…you are My friends IF you do what I command you.”
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
"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 C.] Ted -Makes all the sense to me ;)
We demonstrate love for others because God loved us (I John 4). Love for God is what drives the actions that you pointed out, including breaking the fellowship with someone who jeopardizes the Gospel. It is because we love God and His Word that we stop demonstrating “brotherly” love for those who do not act in accordance with the Gospel. It is spiritual treason to love someone so much that we can’t break fellowship with them when they have amply demonstrated that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments (John 14:12-17).
Look at I John 4 and let me know if I’m making sense:
But what secondary separation wants to do is “break fellowship” while at the same time still affirm that the one who’s fellowship is being broken is still to be considered a brother. What you have written above is spot on.
What do we call people “jeopardize the gospel” and who “do not act in accordance with the gospel?” and who “amply demonstrate that they do not love God enough to keep His commandments?” Those in the faith, or out of the faith?
Secondary separation, as a practice - and maybe this applies to the situation you alluded to earlier (idk) calls them “brothers,” but the NT calls them “apostates.”
My point is there is no such thing in the NT as secondary separation. People are either to be acknowledged as in the faith or not in the faith. Brothers are not to be held in limbo as suspect (and thus separated from), but to be loved. Just to be clear, I’m not speaking of personal separation as per 2 Thess. 3:14 and 1 Cor. 5:11.
I think I understand what Ted is saying, and would agree with some of it. My problem is how to apply NT teaching and practice in the 21st century when the church scene is totally different. In NT times, there seems to have been one church in each city. Things were pretty simple. If a professed believe was a member in good standing of his church, I, as a member in good standing of a church in another city, considered him my brother in Christ, and treated him as such. If he were excommunicated from his church, I no longer considered him my brother in Christ. Clear and simple.
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] I think I understand what Ted is saying, and would agree with some of it. My problem is how to apply NT teaching and practice in the 21st century when the church scene is totally different. In NT times, there seems to have been one church in each city. Things were pretty simple. If a professed believe was a member in good standing of his church, I, as a member in good standing of a church in another city, considered him my brother in Christ, and treated him as such. If he were excommunicated from his church, I no longer considered him my brother in Christ. Clear and simple.What you write about is why I jumped in on this thread, Greg (post 36). What we actually need are clear and distinctive articulations of biblical ecclesiology. The cure for the common problem of a flawed fundamentalism and compromising evangelicalism is as close as an open Bible and Titus 1:5-9. The church of Jesus Christ on Crete was where we are today (i.e., what you describe in Alamance County). Paul’s solution then is still the right solution today.
What do we do today with the more than 200 churches in Alamance County, North Carolina. Some are clearly apostate, though even these have some within them that seem to be genuine Christians. Others are evangelical, but compromised. Their membership appears to be a mixed multitude. Some are staunchly fundamental, but even so, I seriously question the reality of some of their members professed salvation. About the only ones I can be reasonably sure about are members of my own congregation. Members in good standing are considered my brothers. The few we have had to excommunicated over the years are to be treated as non brothers. But members of other churches are a problem. Since few churches practice anything close to NT church membership, how do I relate to them? I can’t assume they are all unsaved or apostate. Neither can I assume they are all my brothers in Christ. That is my dilemma. Has anyone on this thread sorted this out enough to provide some Biblical help?
Ted:
I am going to be out of circulation for about 10 days, so here is my conclusion to the whole matter.
I agree with the dictum that the cure is biblical ecclelsioogy; put that way, who could disagree? But your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question. So where does that leave the issue? My loving conclusion is to drop it here and elsewhere. The horse can’t get any more dead; let it RIP.
I am going to be out of circulation for about 10 days, so here is my conclusion to the whole matter.
I agree with the dictum that the cure is biblical ecclelsioogy; put that way, who could disagree? But your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question. So where does that leave the issue? My loving conclusion is to drop it here and elsewhere. The horse can’t get any more dead; let it RIP.
Rolland McCune
[Jay C.] Yes, I was referring to the FBF…a little blast from the past here:Jay, you said above that the FBF sent people to TEACH at HAMMOND.
http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-24-10/14345] Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap and John Vaughn??
That is a far cry from what actually happened. John Vaughn happened to be scheduled in a meeting in Powell, Tennessee, a long long way from Hammond, along with Jack Schaap. That is NOT teaching at HAMMOND. Furthermore, while Dr. Vaughn is very visibly “the FBF”, the fact is that “the FBF” didn’t send him there, he went on his own initiative. I can assure you that if “the FBF” includes at least the whole board, the whole board was and is very concerned about connections with Jack Schaap of any kind.
But you said something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what actually happened. I think you need to retract the statement.
[Jay C.] My argument is that by sharing a platform and fellowship with the heretics at Hammond, the FBF has defined / endorsed them as orthodox Christians. The FBF has expanded the gospel to include people who at best muddy the gospel and downright confuse it at other times.No, just not true. I think you need to retract this also. The FBF has NOT defined/endorsed ‘the heretics at Hammond’ as orthodox Christians. You may criticize the FBF all you like, but please at least be truthful in your criticisms. This is just wrong.
Clear as mud?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This post is for everyone, but deals especially with questions raised by Larry.
I have thought long and hard about this series of posts. I believe what I need to do (along with everyone else) is slow down. This is an important discussion, so let me try to post little chunks carefully rather than rush into posts that will raise more questions than they answer. And let us all try to avoid taking sides or hardening our positions too soon. Every thread on SI should be about pursuit of truth, not protecting our viewpoint.
With that in mind, let me try to field a couple of the questions with each post over the next hours and days.
Christian Unity teaching pervades Scripture, yet within my heritage (fundamentalism), it is a study seldom undertaken in depth. In some new-evangelical groups, it is also seldom thoroughly studied, but rather invoked as a basis for ignoring the kinds of separation standardly practiced by fundamentalists. Either way, since it is a recurrent theme in Scripture, unity deserves our attention. John 17, Ephesians, Philippians, and I Corinthians all contribute large amounts of data to a study of unity. The full scope of these passages is beyond the scope of one post. But let us try to summarize.
The Unity is “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). This genitive usage can be interpreted in various ways, but it is at least clear that the Unity is related to the Spirit’s work. It is not something created by us. It is something that already exists between believers, and we are commanded to “keep” it or guard it. This is an important point. Unity is not created by our action. It can be, however, diminished by some inaction on our part.
Eph. 2:11-22 places the source of the unity as being the work of Christ “by the cross”. John 17 links it to a work of the Father, in the sense that Christ is asking the Father to establish it. Clearly, there is a triune work here with regard to Unity.
Logically, two extremes need to be avoided:
1). The presumption that we must do something to create Unity between Christians. That Unity is a reality.
2). The presumption that we can or should create Unity where it has not been created by God (Ecumenism would be one example).
Where does this unity exist? It exists wherever the truly redeemed exist. All who are in Christ are united, as evidenced by the way Unity is dealt with in Ephesians. And yet, the way that Christ prays for Unity to the Father certainly hints at some more ultimate expression of it, perhaps eschatological. We can return to that concept in a future post.
So, unity exists. It is the presumed relationship of the redeemed one to another.
One might ask, as Larry did, what is the practical effect of such unity at great distance? How can my church and Larry’s church have Unity in a meaningful way? This is a great question. An illustration might help. I am married to my wife. I wear a ring, so it is presumed I am married. Yet the visible expression of our marriage is lacking when my wife travels out of town. Our married state is not removed, but the visibility is.
So, in answer to your question, Larry, I will freely grant that any visible expression of unity, as prayed for by Christ in John 17, must be found primarily in those who are already more related (by geography, by common cause, by common worship-styles). But an acknowledgment that other believers are believers – brothers and sisters to us and joint-heirs with us in Christ – seems to be required at the very minimum.
Larry, you have also asked how we can know that the passage in Ephesians is about other than local church relationships. That’s a great question. Part of the answer may be in the evidence suggesting that Ephesians was written to more than one church (most Introductions on Ephesians will cover this). But one could then merely extend the question, asking how we can know the unity is not for each of these local churches. A more full response is available. There are the presumptions of cross-assembly unity in Scripture, such as III John’s condemnation for believers not receiving the missionaries, or the cross-assembly support in II Cor. 8. But there are also express statements. For example, in John 17:20-21, we read “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” From this, we see that it is Christ’s desire that all who believe in Him through the Apostles’ message – all of them – might be one. No restriction as to sub-sets divided by church or locale is given.
Having said all of this, I hope everyone can see why I identify Unity as the default position. I assume it exists between me and another believer because God says it does. Only when Scripture specifically authorizes me to deal with a brother or sister separately can separation that pierces this unity be practiced.
You asked why I think my Unity/Separation paradigm was superior to that of Dr. McCune (and thanks so much for making it all the more intimidating by emphasizing the academic disparity between us ;) ). I’m not sure I fully understand everything Dr. McCune said yet. I am still digesting it.
You asked about degrees of separation and unity that I was glossing over with my hyperbole. The best answer to that will be to discuss the particulars of separation scenarios specifically authorized by Scripture.
But this does raise a question about separation. If my view is correct, one might ask, “What are we really saying when we practice separation?” Are we saying “We no longer accept you as a believer.” Or are we saying “We now are shunning you so that you will feel like you are not being given ‘unity’ status.”? The answer I would give is, it depends on the authorizing passage based on which separation is being practiced. More on this in a later post.
Larry, you mentioned that one reason for doctrinal statements is to outline the basis of unity. I would agree with that if we mean “unity” in the limited sense of membership. But the Biblical unity we are defining here is distinct from “joining” based on assent to a doctrinal statement. It exists because of who we are in Christ, as surely in the new convert who couldn’t begin to comprehend a doctrinal statement as in the learned doctor of theology who compiles one. The list in Ephesians 4 is not just a doctrinal list (since a new believer may not know he shares “one baptism” for instance, with all other believers). More than a common doctrine, it is a set of common possessions we believers have in Him.
The question about ancillary versus primary doctrine/teaching is the perennial problem, isn’t it? I’ve been harping on it for years (as in, “the problem with Fundamentalism is nobody ever defined exactly which beliefs / practices were fundamental”). I’ve been trying to build a Biblical paradigm for determining this for years. I am writing an article about my preliminary findings. I will try to post a few ideas soon.
I have thought long and hard about this series of posts. I believe what I need to do (along with everyone else) is slow down. This is an important discussion, so let me try to post little chunks carefully rather than rush into posts that will raise more questions than they answer. And let us all try to avoid taking sides or hardening our positions too soon. Every thread on SI should be about pursuit of truth, not protecting our viewpoint.
With that in mind, let me try to field a couple of the questions with each post over the next hours and days.
Christian Unity teaching pervades Scripture, yet within my heritage (fundamentalism), it is a study seldom undertaken in depth. In some new-evangelical groups, it is also seldom thoroughly studied, but rather invoked as a basis for ignoring the kinds of separation standardly practiced by fundamentalists. Either way, since it is a recurrent theme in Scripture, unity deserves our attention. John 17, Ephesians, Philippians, and I Corinthians all contribute large amounts of data to a study of unity. The full scope of these passages is beyond the scope of one post. But let us try to summarize.
The Unity is “of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3). This genitive usage can be interpreted in various ways, but it is at least clear that the Unity is related to the Spirit’s work. It is not something created by us. It is something that already exists between believers, and we are commanded to “keep” it or guard it. This is an important point. Unity is not created by our action. It can be, however, diminished by some inaction on our part.
Eph. 2:11-22 places the source of the unity as being the work of Christ “by the cross”. John 17 links it to a work of the Father, in the sense that Christ is asking the Father to establish it. Clearly, there is a triune work here with regard to Unity.
Logically, two extremes need to be avoided:
1). The presumption that we must do something to create Unity between Christians. That Unity is a reality.
2). The presumption that we can or should create Unity where it has not been created by God (Ecumenism would be one example).
Where does this unity exist? It exists wherever the truly redeemed exist. All who are in Christ are united, as evidenced by the way Unity is dealt with in Ephesians. And yet, the way that Christ prays for Unity to the Father certainly hints at some more ultimate expression of it, perhaps eschatological. We can return to that concept in a future post.
So, unity exists. It is the presumed relationship of the redeemed one to another.
One might ask, as Larry did, what is the practical effect of such unity at great distance? How can my church and Larry’s church have Unity in a meaningful way? This is a great question. An illustration might help. I am married to my wife. I wear a ring, so it is presumed I am married. Yet the visible expression of our marriage is lacking when my wife travels out of town. Our married state is not removed, but the visibility is.
So, in answer to your question, Larry, I will freely grant that any visible expression of unity, as prayed for by Christ in John 17, must be found primarily in those who are already more related (by geography, by common cause, by common worship-styles). But an acknowledgment that other believers are believers – brothers and sisters to us and joint-heirs with us in Christ – seems to be required at the very minimum.
Larry, you have also asked how we can know that the passage in Ephesians is about other than local church relationships. That’s a great question. Part of the answer may be in the evidence suggesting that Ephesians was written to more than one church (most Introductions on Ephesians will cover this). But one could then merely extend the question, asking how we can know the unity is not for each of these local churches. A more full response is available. There are the presumptions of cross-assembly unity in Scripture, such as III John’s condemnation for believers not receiving the missionaries, or the cross-assembly support in II Cor. 8. But there are also express statements. For example, in John 17:20-21, we read “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” From this, we see that it is Christ’s desire that all who believe in Him through the Apostles’ message – all of them – might be one. No restriction as to sub-sets divided by church or locale is given.
Having said all of this, I hope everyone can see why I identify Unity as the default position. I assume it exists between me and another believer because God says it does. Only when Scripture specifically authorizes me to deal with a brother or sister separately can separation that pierces this unity be practiced.
You asked why I think my Unity/Separation paradigm was superior to that of Dr. McCune (and thanks so much for making it all the more intimidating by emphasizing the academic disparity between us ;) ). I’m not sure I fully understand everything Dr. McCune said yet. I am still digesting it.
You asked about degrees of separation and unity that I was glossing over with my hyperbole. The best answer to that will be to discuss the particulars of separation scenarios specifically authorized by Scripture.
But this does raise a question about separation. If my view is correct, one might ask, “What are we really saying when we practice separation?” Are we saying “We no longer accept you as a believer.” Or are we saying “We now are shunning you so that you will feel like you are not being given ‘unity’ status.”? The answer I would give is, it depends on the authorizing passage based on which separation is being practiced. More on this in a later post.
Larry, you mentioned that one reason for doctrinal statements is to outline the basis of unity. I would agree with that if we mean “unity” in the limited sense of membership. But the Biblical unity we are defining here is distinct from “joining” based on assent to a doctrinal statement. It exists because of who we are in Christ, as surely in the new convert who couldn’t begin to comprehend a doctrinal statement as in the learned doctor of theology who compiles one. The list in Ephesians 4 is not just a doctrinal list (since a new believer may not know he shares “one baptism” for instance, with all other believers). More than a common doctrine, it is a set of common possessions we believers have in Him.
The question about ancillary versus primary doctrine/teaching is the perennial problem, isn’t it? I’ve been harping on it for years (as in, “the problem with Fundamentalism is nobody ever defined exactly which beliefs / practices were fundamental”). I’ve been trying to build a Biblical paradigm for determining this for years. I am writing an article about my preliminary findings. I will try to post a few ideas soon.
Mike, thanks for a thoughtful post. Your understanding of this issue is very helpful.
Ted, I can’t make any sense out of your last comment. As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours. And I don’t see what the appointment of qualified elders in the churches on Crete does to solve the problem I have with how to relate to members of churches in my area, whose churches do not practice Biblical ecclesiology.
If you are saying that the solution is to get all the churches to return to NT doctrine and practice, agreed! But what do we do in the meanwhile in sorting out our relationships with professing believers in our community? Do we accept every profession at face value and treat everyone as a brother, regardless of the evidence? Do we stand aloof from every professed believer who is not a member of our church, or another church that believes and practices what we do? That is my question. I fail to see how your answer addresses the problem.
Ted, I can’t make any sense out of your last comment. As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours. And I don’t see what the appointment of qualified elders in the churches on Crete does to solve the problem I have with how to relate to members of churches in my area, whose churches do not practice Biblical ecclesiology.
If you are saying that the solution is to get all the churches to return to NT doctrine and practice, agreed! But what do we do in the meanwhile in sorting out our relationships with professing believers in our community? Do we accept every profession at face value and treat everyone as a brother, regardless of the evidence? Do we stand aloof from every professed believer who is not a member of our church, or another church that believes and practices what we do? That is my question. I fail to see how your answer addresses the problem.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion