Antidote: A Cure for a Common Problem of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism

pillars

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.

Discussion

Greg, would you agree that that many church leaders in Alamance County are spiritually dangerous to those bought with the blood of Christ? If so then your assessment would match the apostle Paul’s concerning the churches on the island of Crete in the 1st Century. Paul’s first adjective in describing the dangerous church leaders on Crete was “many” (Titus 1:10). Hopefully, that will help you reconsider your statement, “As near as I can tell, the churches in the cities in Crete were not at all like those in my area, or yours.” Oh, they were… so very much.

Titus was commanded by Paul to rescue the elect from the dangerous church leaders in every city on Crete (Titus 1:1-16). According to 2009 figures, Alamance County has a population of about 150K. Then we have your estimate of 200 churches. By comparison, Crete likely had a minimum population of 300K in the 1st Century. We aren’t told how many churches there were on Crete by the time of The Titus Mandate, but they were many and in every city, and most were well established. I make a case in my book for a minimum of 100 churches on Crete, using this as the most conservative number.

“In every city” Titus was mandated by Jesus Christ to reform all the believers into a single church under one group of qualified elders (Tit. 1:5-9). Some of the churches in each city were probably OK, but most were not. Yet all were dismantled and merged due to several factors brought out in the letter. Then when Titus had finished appointing elders over the newly constituted church in one city he left the believers in that city under the oversight of their newly appointed elders, while he moved on to the next city to appoint elders for the rescue and protection of the elect there.

There in a thumbnail is the reformational aspect of The Titus Mandate. It is an apostolically mandated rescue operation that results in biblical church reform, strips power away from dangerous men in the church, and protects Christ’s sheep from dangerous church leaders who lead churches by worldly pragmatism. If you would like to read a little more you can download the 1st chapter of the book for free at www.TheTitusMandate.org.

[Don Johnson]
[Jay C.] 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??
Jay, you said above that the FBF sent people to TEACH at HAMMOND.

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.
You know what? You’re right. I was thinking about Ron Hamilton giving a concert at Hammond and conflated it with Vaughn going to that conference. My apologies to those involved and mentioned. I also wasn’t as clear as I should have been. What I should have said is that when Vaughn went, even of his own accord, to this conference in Tennessee, he legitimized Hammond by appearing on a platform together with Schaap and others. It doesn’t matter if he went to Hammond, they met at some other place, or if Vaughn brought him in to speak to his church (which thankfully didn’t happen). He strengthened and gave credit to the HAC orbit.

I remember very well sitting in preacher boys’ classes at BJU and NIU where teachers would talk about associations and how dangerous it was to give any semblance of endorsement/encouragement to people by sharing a platform with them, wherever it was. If I understand right, that’s why so many people claim to be upset at MacArthur and Piper’s associations as well now. So for someone like Vaughn to decide that it’s OK to sit on the platform at a conference, knowing full well that Schaap will be there, and to not leave, is amazing to me.

Therefore, when I say:
[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.
I was not pointing to Vaughn teaching at Hammond, although it certainly looked that way (and I apologize for it). I am pointing to the fact that the President of the FBF didn’t have a problem with being in the same room as those who teach false doctrine and man-centered legalism.

Finally, this isn’t the first time that Fundy leaders have been associated with HAC/Hammond. Other stories include:

* Ron Hamilton http://sharperiron.org/2006/10/03/patch-the-pirate-goes-to-hammond] gives a concert at Hammond

* Frank Garlock and Jim Binney http://www.fundamentalforums.com/309858-post22.html teach at Hammond .

"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 Bigelow] 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?
Well, seems to me that any of those people in quotes can’t be Christians, can they? Or, if they are that confused that they can’t articulate a problem with whatever it is that they are doing, then can we claim that they really understand it? I don’t know. Separation is on a case by case by case basis, depending on the offense, the confrontee and confronter’s consciences, and other factors.
[Ted Bigelow] 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 agree with you that there are no formal secondary separation models in the NT between Christians and Organizations…there were no parachurch ministries in Rome :). However, I do not agree with you that because there are no models, there is no warrant for secondary separation. It is perfectly legitimate for a believer - Old or New Testament - to withdraw from apostasy and error, and even to withdraw from those who endorse/encourage apostasy and error if they claim to be believers. That’s why Paul commanded the church at Corinth to throw out the man who was with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5).

Separation made more sense to me once I realized that I wasn’t responsible for discerning the person’s heart. What I am supposed to do is to look at their ongoing pattern of disobedience and realizing that it doesn’t line up with what they should be doing as someone who loves and wants to obey God, confronting them on it, and then finally saying that because they will not turn, they should not be considered as a believer (Matthew 7:15-23).

"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.] I agree with you that there are no formal secondary separation models in the NT between Christians and Organizations…there were no parachurch ministries in Rome :). However, I do not agree with you that because there are no models, there is no warrant for secondary separation. It is perfectly legitimate for a believer - Old or New Testament - to withdraw from apostasy and error, and even to withdraw from those who endorse/encourage apostasy and error if they claim to be believers. That’s why Paul commanded the church at Corinth to throw out the man who was with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5).
Jay, pardon me if I have misunderstood you, but what does throwing out the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife have to do with secondary separation? The paragraph itself doesn’t make much sense since you start talking about secondary separation then somehow try to prove it is warranted by showing primary separation.

[Rolland McCune] Ted:

your “biblical” ecclesiology (and the notion of ecclesiastical non-separation from another believer) is biblically indefensible and quite out of the question.
I thank you sir for your plain spokenness, and would love to be instructed when you make it back. I don’t want to hold onto anything that is biblically indefensible, and if you would help me see where I hold to something I ought not, I would be eternally grateful.

[Jay C.]

* Ron Hamilton http://sharperiron.org/2006/10/03/patch-the-pirate-goes-to-hammond] gives a concert at Hammond

* Frank Garlock and Jim Binney http://www.fundamentalforums.com/309858-post22.html teach at Hammond .
Jay, I am curious about this. Is it legitimate for those two men to go somewhere outside their circle for the purpose of helping and being an influence on them? Would you be saying the same things if they went to a church on the left rather than the fringe right? It seems to me that they believe their ministry is to help churches with music. Why should they stick only with churches that “supposedly” already have it right on music? Where does the concept of being salt and light play into this?

@ http://sharperiron.org/comment/29702#comment-29702] Daniel #67 - It’s worth noting that Paul did expressly condemn the Corinthians for tolerating the sin in their midst. (5:1-2, 5:6-7, 5:11)

@ http://sharperiron.org/comment/29707#comment-29707] Greg #69 - What is the purpose for teaching on how to have ‘right music’ to a church that gets the Gospel wrong, like the Galatians did? Or that does get it right and then encumbers it with all manner of extra-biblical demands that are not scriptural? If Hammond was an unregenerate college campus, I might see your point, but they claim to be believers.

"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

I find that hardly condemning to the Corinthians, unless you are using a far weightier word to describe what he told them to do to the brother who was sleeping with his father’s wife. I mean, it is condemning in the sense that Paul is disapproving of their arrogance in the matter, but not condemning how many people would define secondary separation. So, where is secondary separation in this passage? Or again, did I completely miss your point?

If condemning is used in the sense of judging them for punishment, no, then Paul didn’t do that. Paul did http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn] condemn (use #1) them for tolerating the sin in their midst.

Here’s the passage - I’m bolding the sections that are addressed to the church, since it seems to me that we usually get caught up in the man and his wife and not in the admonishments to the church:
[1 Cor. 5] Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
My basic argument is that if Schaap et al are believers, then they are in serious error and we should not allow them to remain in our midst either because of their error.

I’ll concede that this may not be the strongest point in favor of secondary separation, but I did think it was worth noting in light of the discussion. As I said above, I don’t think there is a clear example of secondary separation delineated in the NT, but I do think that guidelines are given that would indicate that it is occasionally necessary.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I agree, we often get caught up in this man, when a great deal of it also has to do with the church at Corinth. I was questioning your use of it, because it seemed like you were to prove or show secondary separation, when it doesn’t. It does speak to primary, but that is it. It also shows Paul’s attitude towards those that permitted it, but that is in no way separation, first, secondary, tertiary, nth.

Could you provide some of those guidelines you believe to indicate secondary separation. I really would like to take a look.

I wonder if we aren’t getting a bit loose with terms here. “Secondary separation” is typically reserved for separating from someone because they failed to separate. It is not merely separation because of disobedience. That is why I think “secondary separation” is a misnomer.

But Ted’s whole case seems to rest on 2 Thess 3 and 1 Cor 5 being local church only and being “personal” (I suppose opposed to “ecclesiastical”).

To this the following points are made:

1. In both cases, the admonition to separation is coming from Paul who is outside the local church. It is inconceivable that Paul would tell a church to separate from someone while not believing he himself should separate from them. Therefore, this is not “local church” only, but also involves at least one person from outside the local church (Paul).

2. In 2 Thess 3, the person is plainly declared to be a brother, so claiming that the NT has no place for separation from a brother, but only apostates is clearly disproven.

3. In 1 Cor 5, the person is delivered over to be destroyed in the flesh so that the spirit may be saved, thus implying the presumption is that this is a brother. If 2 Cor 2 is talking about the same man, he is a brother, and therefore Paul here is calling for separation from a brother.

4. It is unlikely that Paul would command a body to pass judgment on one of its members (expel him, have no fellowship with him), but would condone another body or individual to have fellowship in this sense. Remember, he from outside the body has already passed judgment meaning that there is room in the NT to pass judgment on someone who is not a part of your local body.

Thus, the suggestion that someone must be an apostate to justify separation seems to be proven wrong simply by noting these things. The idea that we can only separate from apostates does not stand in line with these commands. And if we are to separate from brothers over behavior, should we really have a lesser standard over doctrine and behavior of pastors and churches?

Ted says, 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? The Bible says that these people can be brothers (2 Thess 3). They may also be outside the faith. Ultimately, we have no way to know. In 2 Thess 3 we are plainly to treat him as a brother. In 1 Cor 5 we are also to treat him as a brother because we are not to eat with him, but we are to eat with those outside the church (i.e., unbelievers).

The thing that sticks out to me when I read discussions about secondary separation is that Scriptural separation requires firsthand and/or shared, verifiable knowledge, right? IOW, I don’t separate from someone just because Dr. Snodgrass separates, and for him to separate from me because I won’t separate based on his knowledge or opinion is where the whole thing gets sucked into chaos, IMO. And then if I’m in a position to attempt to restore someone based on Gal. 6:1 and Dr.Snodgrass separates because from his perspective there’s already been a first and second admonition (Titus 3:10)…

Anyway-
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).
Can’t wait.


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.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy105.gif

Ted,

You have an interesting interpretation regarding the book of Titus and the church situation on the island of Crete. I have never considered the Jewish teachers in Titus 1 (probably Judaizers, similar to Galatians) to be pastors of established churches. I have considered them to be men who were “pecking around the edges” of established congregations to try to draw members after themselves, must like we see in several of the other Epistles. I wonder if anyone else shares your interpretation, and believes that there were 100 or more churches on Crete, many of which were apostate? If so, I haven’t come across it before now.

Be that as it may, that still doesn’t actually solve the problem. What you are proposing is, I suppose, the ideal solution, assuming that your descriptionof the church situation on Crete is correct. So, what is the application to Alamance County? Am I to gather up all the believers in apostate and compromised churches into my church? I would love to. For those who stay in compromised churches, am I to assume they are unregenerate false brethren and treat them as such? Should I have nothing to do with professing church members in Alamance County who remain members of compromised churches? How compromised does a church have to be before I do this? The worst churches, those which are brazenly and openly apostate are not very difficult to figure out. How about those evengelical churches that are weak on doctrine? How about, say, charismatic churches? How do I regard the members of those churches? These are the questions I wrestle with as I try to “keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” as my default position, like Mike suggested. It’s not too difficult to apply the principles of Scripture within my own church. It can become very challenging in regard to members of other church in our community.

G. N. Barkman

[Susan R] The thing that sticks out to me when I read discussions about secondary separation is that Scriptural separation requires firsthand and/or shared, verifiable knowledge, right? IOW, I don’t separate from someone just because Dr. Snodgrass separates, and for him to separate from me because I won’t separate based on his knowledge or opinion is where the whole thing gets sucked into chaos, IMO. And then if I’m in a position to attempt to restore someone based on Gal. 6:1 and Dr.Snodgrass separates because from his perspective there’s already been a first and second admonition (Titus 3:10)…
Yup.

Personally, I don’t see separation (I’ll drop the ‘secondary’ term since Larry did a good job in noting the problems there) as something that can be legitimately practiced when it comes to:

1. Rumors and hearsay - the infamous John MacArthur http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm denies the blood story didn’t include a reference to whatever statement MacArthur actually said and wasn’t verifiable. People believed it because it came from a “trustworthy” source.

2. “Separating” from people that I don’t actually know or have any legitimate interaction with (I can’t separate from John Piper, John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes because I have never met them). Jim Peet has done a good job in pointing that out on a couple occasions.

edit - I say “trustworthy” because in this case, I do not believe the claims of the publication were trustworthy - I personally believe that the claims were intended to be inflammatory and reactionary. I do believe that, as a whole, the work and ministry of BJU is trustworthy now.

"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

Hi again, Jay.

Thanks for getting what I was saying yesterday. I’ve been away all day and haven’t been able to acknowledge your response.

But on rumours and hearsay: you said that the MacArthur story didn’t include a reference to what he actually said… well, not so. There are things that you can criticize people about in that story, but the fact is that there are several written statements by MacArthur that were ambiguous at best, so the complaint wasn’t based on nothing. I have some documents in my files…. hmmm… packed away somewhere… that I could scan and send you at some future date to confirm what I am saying. Can’t get my hands on them right now…

However, I have no wish to rehash that here. I am just continuing a caution of being careful about making statements in these arguments that rely on memory. We are all subject to the vagaries of memory and make assumptions about what we think we remember. So be careful…

On your last point, do you think it is ok to ‘separate’ (or find a better term) from Rob Bell, the Michigan universalist? I mean, what legitimate interaction do you or I have with him?

I do think that using the term “separation” to apply to so many different actions of discernment is part of the problem.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3