Church Planting Thirty Years Later

In 1982 my wife and I planted our first church in Philadelphia – Faith Independent Baptist Church. The long church name seemed awkward back then but I wanted to be sure people knew up front where I stood. Fresh from eight years of ministry training at fundamentalist schools, I was a committed independent, fundamental Baptist. As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well. The church’s doctrinal statement enshrined a dispensational hermeneutic essential for correct interpretation, the pre-tribulational rapture as the next event on the prophetic calendar, and the King James Version as the official translation. As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.

Fast forward to 2011 where in the same city I am now working with a team of elders to plant another church in a spiritual wasteland where we parachuted in with a few families but without a significant core group. After thirty years of church planting I claim no special expertise, offer no guarantees of success, and sense an even greater dependency upon the Lord to build His church. Similar struggles, resistance to the gospel remain.

This one-year-old church is elder led, non-denominational, non-dispensational, and uses the English Standard Version. Much has changed. Most remains the same. I would venture to add that what is essential has not changed. In areas where change has occurred, thirty years of ministry, of study, of relationships, and of experiences have conspired to bring me to the place I am today. For many years IFB was all I knew or cared to know. Now I find myself rarely at home in this fragmented movement of competing networks. I find myself increasingly on the outside looking in. This is my journey, but I’m glad I was not alone.

After planting a church in Philadelphia from 1982-1987 my family and I went to France and then Romania in church planting and pastoral training ministry. Those years spent overseas provided opportunities for fellowship with believers from different horizons and spared me the need to engage in many of the needless conflicts being fought in the States. There was less need to conform to others’ expectations of what it meant to be safely within the fundamentalist orbit.

During that time overseas I pursued further studies with Reformed Theological Seminary’s extension in Budapest and in time completed a degree in theological studies. For the first time I was challenged from a different theological perspective by men with whom I had strong disagreements. Yet I was persuaded of their evangelical commitment, their love for God, and their commitment to God’s authoritative Word. I began to see that we could differ interpretatively and still enjoy fellowship in the gospel. I was moving away from former positions for which I could still argue but could no longer support biblically with integrity.

In late 1998 we returned to the States where I began a short residency in Deerfield, IL at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and where in 2004 I completed a DMin in Missiology. Once again I was struck by the combination of scholarship and godliness among the professors. There were differences in some areas but the centrality of the gospel transcended those differences.

From 1999-2008, I was missions pastor and director of church planting at a well-known suburban church. I travelled frequently and taught overseas in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Peru, China, and several other countries. There were opportunities to teach in the area of missions and church planting at several schools and seminaries and invitations to preach at various conferences. My visits to China were especially revealing as we looked for house church leaders with whom we could partner for training purposes. I found myself looking for “significant compatibility” and agreement with the historic Christian faith rather than agreement with my convictions. My time in Lebanon among Arab believers caused me to look at Scripture afresh and contributed to modifications in my views on eschatology.

Some might find it surprising that personal experiences have influenced my theology to such a degree. In reality our experiences or lack of them have a great part to play in how we read Scripture. We read it with the eyes of those around us, those who trained us or those we look to for guidance. Our experiences should not determine our theology yet how we read and understand Scripture cannot be separated from our outside influences and experiences. Some may consider it a badge of honor to hold the same beliefs and convictions they held thirty years ago. While I can say that for the fundamentals of the faith, I must confess that second and third-tier commitments and interpretations are held loosely and are no longer a cause for separation or hindrance in partnership in the Lord’s work. Perhaps it’s partly due to the fact that I recognize it is His work not mine and that I labor in His vineyard not one of my creation.

On one hand, I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework. On the other hand I find after all these years in ministry, with experiences and exposure to global Christianity, that IFB fails to describe how I see myself in my relation to the Lord, in relation to other believers, and in relation to the mission of the church.

The last few years have been especially decisive in the direction I have taken. When I returned from Romania in 1998 I knew that both I and the spiritual landscape that I knew had changed. Then in 2008, while temporarily living in France and helping to plant a new non-Baptist church, I wrote an opinion article on Fundamentalism. It was my way of signaling at that time that although I was on a journey out of Fundamentalism as I had known it, I wanted to remain friends with Fundamentalists. I began to write, to challenge conventions and traditions. I have not always been irenic and have not avoided controversy.

When I described myself as a “soft cessationsist,” questioned elements of dispensationalism, took issue with unbiblical separation, did not clearly espouse literal six-day, twenty-hour creation days, expressed my dismay at the paucity of resources committed to church planting, or challenged traditional thinking in the church’s engagement with culture, I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.

Whether or not I should’ve written some of those articles for publication is another story although I have few regrets. I know there are some who are so much surer in many areas where I have questions. I know others who do not want to rock the boat and, to mix metaphors, prefer to fly under the radar. I suppose that would’ve been a safer route for me but that bridge has already been crossed. I must confess that I have found somewhat amusing the wide range of men who have disagreed with me, attacked me, or separated from me. There has been something for many to dislike although certainly not the same things.

I have no one to blame but myself although these experiences reinforced in my mind how important agreement is to Fundamentalists in areas where I believe we have scriptural latitude to disagree charitably. The agreement demanded by many IFB gatekeeper leaders, churches, and institutions in order to play in their yard far exceeds biblical teaching. The loyalty required by many in order to be safe requires submitting to traditional rather than biblical standards. It is not a virtue to have an inquiring mind in much of Fundamentalism. I had to decide whether I would shut up or speak out knowing that speaking out might marginalize me.

There are a few glimmers of hope as some IFB brethren have begun to break out of their isolation. I think particularly of Northland University which has invited professors from outside IFB circles and of Calvary Baptist Seminary with Mark Dever at their ATC Conference. Of course these moves have triggered substantial criticism from within IFBdom which comes as no surprise. Many IFB factions, which contribute little to theological reflection, brook nothing which deviates from their long-held conventions. I encourage those who choose to stay within the movement to continue their pursuit of God-honoring unity with those outside the IFB pale.

As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting. I have no illusions that moving on will bring greater resources or guarantee success in church planting. I’m not looking for greener grass. At this point any grass will do. I still welcome friendship and even partnership with my IFB brothers who have not drawn unreasonable lines in the sand. But I’m too old to jump through all the hoops, too ornery to kowtow and prefer relative obscurity and a few warm relationships to playing ingratiating politics and pleasing men.

Much has changed over the years but God has not. He is faithful and He remains the Lord of the harvest in these challenging and needy times, the ultimate Judge who knows the hearts, and the Accomplisher of His divine purposes. Before Him only I lift my hands, bend my knees, and bow my head.

Discussion

[jpdsr51]
[Bob T It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt
And now Bob has the privelged insight in being able to judge one’s motives, but at least he does it without any hate or animosity. Really, Bob?
Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position; and since such articles were written and posted on SI, a professing Fundamentalist internet site, then the only obvious conclusion was that Steve Davis (your brother) had a purpose of seeking to reach Fundamentalists and challenge many of their doctrines. It is also well known that many who post on here are younger than 40. I have not judged any motives that are not made self evident by Steve Davis himself.

The accusation of judging motives as being wrong is a false concept. Motives often are an issue in scripture and may be an issue where the evidence reveals the motives. Motives are often revealed at law by the circumstances.

[Andrew K.]
Well Andrew it is all rather clear historically.
Yes, but you haven’t made it clear.

I wanted an explanation of where Steve diverges from historic fundamentalism,
I’ll try.

I think it was three years ago that Steve Davis was published in the Lausanne World Pulse (I didn’t find the article to nail down the date, but it’s out there). Unless there are no new evangelicals anywhere anymore, that is a new evangelical publication. From their http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/about.php] About page :
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (Lausanne) is an international movement that seeks to energize churches, mission agencies, networks and individuals to respond with vigor and courage to the cause of global evangelization. Lausanne grew out of the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization called by a committee headed by the Reverend Billy Graham. For more than three decades, through the work of Lausanne, global Christian leaders have participated in regional, national and international consultations and conferences to develop biblical and strategic approaches to evangelism.
The very least that can be said is that our brother (and I do consider him a brother) is and has been moving in new evangelical circles.

Most definitions of new evangelicalism or neoevangelicalism would include accommodation/dialogue with liberals. Those definitions would also include a markedly different approach from fundamentalists to separation. I don’t see Steve adopting the first of those right now, and hopefully never. He certainly has adopted the second. Is he a new evangelical then? It depends on how you define it. Having lived on both sides of that line, I see him as more on the new evangelical side than the fundie side, and moving that direction.

New evangelicalism was a label the new evangelicals chose themselves, to distinguish themselves from fundamentalism, and to describe a direction they themselves were taking. In large part, Steve Davis is describing that he is moving away from something, and his description of his direction bears many similarites to the neos.

If you pressed him for a name for it, he’d probably say he’s moving to conservative evangelicalism. He’s going to find himself surrounded by what might be called soft evangelicalism. It doesn’t matter what label you put on it, though. What matters is the new positions he is taking. In many regards they are not biblical, but he presumably thinks they are.

I did ask if he’s now being a missionary to the fundies to show us a better way. I agree with those above who suggested that this article gives that impression, though whether he thought of it in that way is another question. I also wonder why it was published on a fundamentalist site, at least with that title. It’s really, “How and Why I’ve Left the Fundamentalism I Knew”. At least then we’d know what we’re getting. This article isn’t about church planting at all, and everyone knows it.

If you think there is no difference between conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism, then Steve probably hasn’t left fundamentalism, at least not yet. But there is a difference.

“separation from all that would be a threat to the flock of God.”
It’s what some consider “threats” to the flock of God that concerns me. Take your pick:

Music

Calvinism

Movies

Helping the needy

Bible versions

Non-Baptists

Dress standards

Etc.

I’ve seen fundamentalists separate from these “threats” and then separate form those who didn’t.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[JG] I think it was three years ago that Steve Davis was published in the Lausanne World Pulse (I didn’t find the article to nail down the date, but it’s out there). Unless there are no new evangelicals anywhere anymore, that is a new evangelical publication.

The very least that can be said is that our brother (and I do consider him a brother) is and has been moving in new evangelical circles.

Most definitions of new evangelicalism or neoevangelicalism would include accommodation/dialogue with liberals. Those definitions would also include a markedly different approach from fundamentalists to separation. I don’t see Steve adopting the first of those right now, and hopefully never. He certainly has adopted the second. Is he a new evangelical then? It depends on how you define it. Having lived on both sides of that line, I see him as more on the new evangelical side than the fundie side, and moving that direction.
Is this the best you can do? I think this will come as a surprise to many Fundamentalists that if you write in a publication you are moving in NE circles. BTW, I also had at least one maybe two articles in the FBF magazine AFTER THAT.

If you have not done so please read Rolland McCune’s book, “Promise Unfulfilled.”
Many of us have, and even though I find it quite valuable when it comes to research and information, one of its glaring weaknesses seems to be the same as yours, Bob…..that it generalizes, stereotypes, and broad-brushes evangelicals as all the same, when there is some serious differences among them on the issues that Steve has brought up (Dispensationalism, age of the earth, cessationism, and separation). For instance, there is a world of difference between the beliefs of separation of self proclaimed evangelicals D.A. Carson and Tony Campolo, yet there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgement of nuance when we end up lumping them all together as the same.

McCune seems to do the same even with fundamentalists as well, as if his particular stripe of fundamentalism when it comes to separation issues is the correct and long-standing one, when there is quite long history of the different views among self-identifying fundamentalists when it comes to how the doctrine of separation is applied. For instance, McCune’s view is different than how Bob Ketcham (one of the founders of the GARBC) applied separation…….Ketcham preached at founders week at Moody, preached in the pulpit of Moody Church when Warren Wiersbe was its pastor and kept a very close friendship with the Wiersbe’s until the day he died. Wiersbe was yesterday’s equivalent to today’s conservative evangelical with long historical ties to neo-evangelical groups. McCune attacks this type of lack of separation using John MacArthur as an example for not using discernment because MacArthur regularly speaks at Moody’s founders week which often features new evangelicals. Yet at the same time, Dr. Ketcham was known for his strong stances on separation, being one of the first to warn of and then separate from Billy Graham because of Graham’s regular practice of including liberal churches as part of his crusades.

Also, McCune bemoans the fact that the Evangelical Baptist Missions, a fundamentalist Baptist missions agency would have John Piper speak at one of their conferences, especially since Piper belongs to the BGC (now converge), since open theism Greg Boyd’s church is still part of this denomination. The open theists in Converge comprise a very, very small minority and have been publicly denounced by the conference. However, Dr. Ketcham had no problem speaking at Dr. Riley’s church that was part of the Northern Baptist Convention and at conferences with Dr. Riley despite the fact that Northern Baptist Convention’s apostasy was much, much more serious at that time than the toleration of Open Theists by Converge. So was Dr. Ketcham one of the “disobedient bretheren” because he applied separation differently than McCune has deemed the right way? Or maybe there is room for some disagreement because independent baptists have always embraced the baptist distinctive of individual soul liberty………..

By the way, even though I have some serious disagreements with McCune and even you Bob, when it comes to applying the doctrine of separation and your view of new evangelicalism, I respect why came to your conclusions and your historical context (Fuller, Biola, GARBC, IFCA), and etc…..

[Bob T.]
[jpdsr51]
[Bob T It is said without any hate or animosity but with a realization that all that Steve Davis has written has been with an apparent desire to drag other younger Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals into his world of increasing doctrinal doubt
And now Bob has the privelged insight in being able to judge one’s motives, but at least he does it without any hate or animosity. Really, Bob?
Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position; and since such articles were written and posted on SI, a professing Fundamentalist internet site, then the only obvious conclusion was that Steve Davis (your brother) had a purpose of seeking to reach Fundamentalists and challenge many of their doctrines. It is also well known that many who post on here are younger than 40. I have not judged any motives that are not made self evident by Steve Davis himself.

The accusation of judging motives as being wrong is a false concept. Motives often are an issue in scripture and may be an issue where the evidence reveals the motives. Motives are often revealed at law by the circumstances.
Bob: I don’t need to speak for Steve but I think he would stand with Paul on this:

4:1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

church - www.gracechurchphilly.com blog - www.thegospelfirst.com twitter - @johnpdavis

[Bob T.] Since the purpose of Steve’s prior articles were all questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists, such as 6 day creation and cessationism, along with arguments to persuade others to his new more open position;
The only reason I reply at this point is to show how you misrepresent my positions. I don’t think you do it intentionally but do it constitutionally.

1. Concerning 6 day creation. If you read my article I simply wanted to show that there were other interpretations that were faithful to the authority of Scripture and held by men with impeccable evangelical convictions. I was criticized by some that I didn’t make clear my position but there was no new position except maybe not taking the position others thought I should. As I understand the text now, if I were to teach the traditional 6 day 24 hour creation interpretation I would present it as a valid interpretation but not as the only legitimate way of understanding the text and remaining faithful to Scripture. Personally I find much to commend the view that the 6 days were revelatory days but it’s only a view. If I have to say clearly and loudly that I am convinced beyond all doubt that one position is the only acceptable position along with YEC and make it a test of orthodoxy, that I can’t do that and am guilty of whatever. Here’s how I ended the article because if people read what you write about what I wrote (and my motives) and what I wrote they will have a better picture.

“Though the Bible does not claim to be a scientific textbook, when and where it speaks, it speaks with God’s authority. That authority extends to the veracity of the Genesis account of divine creation whether in the recent or distant past. That authority does not extend to all interpretations of the creation event and to the methodology used for determining the age of the earth. On the one hand we must refuse to capitulate to the changing waves of scientific theory and conflicting viewpoints within the scientific community. On the other hand we must not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). The Bible clearly teaches that creation is the work of God’s hands and offers no refuge to those who seek a compromise with biological evolution. According to Hebrews 11:3, we affirm that “we understand that the universe was created by the word of God.” There can be no question as to what God did. There may be no resolution among Christians about the “how” and “when.”

2. Concerning cessationism: There was a search for balance while I do not claim that I found it.

“A word of caution is in order. According to Schnabel, ‘The assertion that the miracle promotes faith and should thus be an integral part of the mission and evangelism of the church is neither confirmed by Paul, by Luke’s narrative of the apostles’ missionary work in the book of Acts, or by the history of the church.’ Many have erred in building whole movements on the expectation of the miraculous. The aberrations of the signs and wonders movement and the spiritual warfare movement reinforce opposition to any whiff of the spectacular. The condemnable extremes of experience-driven movements often lead to affirming a rigid cessationism and to relegating the miraculous to another age, no longer needed after a period of transition and the completion of Scriptures.”

“Can we find middle ground between extreme positions? Personally, if I have to categorize my view on the possibility of God’s supernatural interventions in the progress of the gospel, I would prefer to characterize myself as a “soft” cessationist—that is, open to the possibility that God may in fact use dreams and visions today. I must admit my reticence for many years, both dispositionally and dispensationally, to espouse this position. My theology—or better, my “theological environment”—did not allow for what seemed to be incontrovertible evidence that God freely chose at times to reveal Himself in Cornelius fashion to those who have no access to the gospel. Furthermore, I see no biblical warrant to not remain open to the possibility of God’s using dreams and visions if He so decides. As in the book of Acts, this act might be expected in unique pioneer situations or where there is no access to the gospel or no Scriptures in the vernacular. This does not lead to seeking visions and dreams as integral and common occurrences in mission. After all parsimony was the rule for dreams and visions in that God used them sparingly. Yet neither should the possibility of present-day dreams and visions be categorically and dogmatically denied because we don’t experience them. We should remain cautious and affirm the primacy of the cross and preaching while recognizing that God can break the rules, our rules, that He is not limited to our theological precisions, and that He cannot be manipulated.”

This is what you call “questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists.”

[Steve Davis] Is this the best you can do? I think this will come as a surprise to many Fundamentalists that if you write in a publication you are moving in NE circles. BTW, I also had at least one maybe two articles in the FBF magazine AFTER THAT.
I’m not shooting at you, friend. You’re doing what you think you should do.

World Pulse IS neo-evangelical. They aren’t conservative evangelicals, Joel T’s Type C. They are well to the “left” of that. You chose to write for them. It’s not a capital offense. They and the people they work with are, for the most part anyway, believers. It shows a comfort with, but not necessarily a joining of, neo-evangelicalism circles. You are willing to look past some of their most dubious associations and say, “I’ll write for them anyway.” That’s fine, it’s your choice.

I don’t think you’ll find many fundamentalists writing in that publication, though. If you waste your time researching it and find I’m wrong, I’ll readily admit it, but I would be surprised. I do think you’ll find lots of soft evangelicals writing there. You might even find some that are barely evangelical at all. Certainly you’ll find them willing to work with people who aren’t evangelical at all. There’s no question on that point.

Is this the best I can do? Of course not. On this thread you’ve told us where you are going. The Evangelical Frees are not fundamentalist, never have been, never claimed to be. But asking if it’s the best I can do is entirely the wrong emphasis. You don’t answer to me anyway. I’m just one of the wackos you disagree with. :) And I certainly am not going to take the time to try to chase down any other articles or associations or whatever of yours that might look neo. Perhaps I could “do better”, but what’s the point or profit?

It’s ok. The labels don’t really matter that much. I don’t really care what you call yourself, and I don’t see any great need to label you myself. In the 50s, the neo-evangelicals created a divide between themselves and fundamentalists. In some ways, you’ve moved in their direction. As I said previously, in other ways you undoubtedly haven’t, and I’m glad for that. I don’t have to peg you in the neo camp. I wouldn’t be camping with you, anyway (every time I go camping it rains), so who cares? You’re doing some things that, since the 50s, fundies wouldn’t have felt comfortable with and evangelicals of all stripes would. Maybe we could call it neo-conservative evangelicalism, or neocongelism for short. :D (I’m lousy at inventing new labels). Maybe trying too hard to find broad labels isn’t such a good idea.

I wonder if the FBF knew you had written for World Pulse when they had you write for them. I suspect they may not have, but it doesn’t matter, unless we think the FBF is God’s anointed and inerrant judge of where lines should be drawn. Since neither you nor I think that, we could probably leave them out of it.

I don’t know if you remember, but I’m convinced your “soft cessationism” article had some valid Biblical points. I appreciated it. Perhaps you might go back and look at that thread before deciding I’m your “enemy”, or out to do my “best” to label you with the bad guys. You’re like everyone else, I’m convinced you are right when you agree with me and wrong when you disagree with me. For some reason, nobody seems to understand that. ;)

[Andrew K.] I’m a bit confused here.

I don’t see anything in Steve’s article that could be taken as a rejection of historic fundamentalism or even a willingness to work with those who reject the fundamentals of the faith. And yet some here seem to be dropping unsubtle hints toward slippery slopes and ready to commence a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning] shunning .

Way to prove his point.

This is why the younger (and sometimes older) generation leaves you in name, Fundamentalism. Sometimes we really don’t understand who you are and what you’re talking about.
I totally agree. And now you know why I come away from this site so discouraged instead of encouraged in my walk with the Lord. To see and *hear* pastors dissing each other, using oh-so-lofty phrases is sad. I’ve refrained from saying anything in response to this pattern in several other threads, but this one finally nails it. Pastor Davis, if we ever are in the Philly area, I would love to visit your church! I guess I’m a new evangelical also. Oh well. I don’t much care how you label me. The only one who truly matters is God, and I already know that I’m accepted by Him, warts and all.

I don’t think you’ll find many fundamentalists writing in that publication, though. If you waste your time researching it and find I’m wrong, I’ll readily admit it, but I would be surprised. I do think you’ll find lots of soft evangelicals writing there. You might even find some that are barely evangelical at all. Certainly you’ll find them willing to work with people who aren’t evangelical at all. There’s no question on that point.
Wow! I guess I better put away the article that I am working on and was going to submit to Lausanne World Pulse in a month on Evangelism and Mission in the early church because most fundamentalists aren’t writing in this publication. What was I thinking! I might be labeled a new evangelical just like Steve has! By the way, can you give me examples of soft evangelicals and those who aren’t evangelicals at all that are connected to Lausanne? I am not necessarily doubting you, I just get the impression that alot of fundamentalists have written off Lausanne as some neo-evangelical organization that is fastly going down the tubes of liberal compromise (you know, that slippery slope fallacy that many of us seem to employ at times). They may be neo-evangelical, but I don’t necessarily see them getting more liberal as time goes by…. You would consider the late John Stott as an evangelical, wouldn’t you? How about Christopher Wright? What about Dr. Ralph Winters? These 3 have probably had the most influence on Lausanne thinking when it comes to theology, mission, and unreached people groups. Are they considered soft or barely evangelical? You are right that it may not be filled with mostly conservative evangelicals, but in Wright and Stott, you will find some of the staunchest defenders of substitutionary atonement………

[Joel Shaffer] Wow! I guess I better put away the article that I am working on and was going to submit to Lausanne World Pulse in a month on Evangelism and Mission in the early church because most fundamentalists aren’t writing in this publication. What was I thinking! I might be labeled a new evangelical just like Steve has! By the way, can you give me examples of soft evangelicals and those who aren’t evangelicals at all that are connected to Lausanne? I am not necessarily doubting you, I just get the impression that alot of fundamentalists have written off Lausanne as some neo-evangelical organization that is fastly going down the tubes of liberal compromise (you know, that slippery slope fallacy that many of us seem to employ at times). They may be neo-evangelical, but I don’t necessarily see them getting more liberal as time goes by…. You would consider the late John Stott as an evangelical, wouldn’t you? How about Christopher Wright? What about Dr. Ralph Winters? These 3 have probably had the most influence on Lausanne thinking when it comes to theology, mission, and unreached people groups. Are they considered soft or barely evangelical? You are right that it may not be filled with mostly conservative evangelicals, but in Wright and Stott, you will find some of the staunchest defenders of substitutionary atonement………
Indeed, I might ask what you were thinking (when you wrote this). ;) I didn’t really label him at all, I said maybe he’s a newcongelical. I admit my label isn’t catching on. :(

Thank you for mentioning John Stott. He was a classic case of a neo-evangelical. Certainly evangelical in theology, and much to be appreciated. Yet, he was willing to remain in direct fellowship with unbelievers. You do know what the Church of England is like these days? As far back as the 70s, he spoke at the World Council of Churches. You do think that includes non-evangelicals, don’t you? Furthermore, he encouraged others to join in ministry with unbelievers. I have a personal letter from an evangelical leader, in defending his joining with the apostate Church of Scotland, in which he cites John Stott as saying that the thing that mattered is the “formal and official doctrines” of the Church, even if “senior leadership” denies “Christian faith, morality, and convictions.” “Yes, sir (or ma’am), I know you and everyone else running your denomination are apostate, but since you haven’t bothered to change your denominational documents, I can still give credibility to you by coming along to your conferences or making joint statements with you.”

That is a complete denial of any kind of Biblical separation. I suspect it would turn the stomach of conservative evangelicals like Mohler, Dever, etc. It is a far cry from what those men believe, I think. Call it what you want, “soft” or “new”, I don’t care. It’s a mar on evangelicalism, whichever prefix you label it with.

What did I say? They are willing to work with non-evangelicals. That is fact. Stott always was. Graham, who was a founder of Lausanne, was willing to do so as well.

I did not say they were fast going down the tubes, nor getting more liberal, nor anything about them being on a slippery slope. I hope your exegesis of Scripture is better than your reading of my words. :)

They are neo-evangelical. Perhaps you missed what came after the first three letters, that “evangelical” part. It doesn’t mean “going down the tubes” or “slippery slope” or “apostate”. It means true doctrine on the Gospel. The “neo” means they are also compromising in some important ways that fundies have never compromised. That’s Lausanne. If Lausanne isn’t neo-evangelical, there is no such thing. If you think it isn’t, please tell me who that is left on God’s green earth is neo-evangelical.

Neo-evangelicalism is unfortunate, but it is not apostasy. For some, it has led to apostasy, but it isn’t liberalism and apostasy. It is accommodation and fellowship with apostasy.

It would be good if you found a better place to publish your article. Most fundies would think that Lausanne’s organizations and publications should be given a wide berth, and for good reason. It doesn’t mean we hate them or think they aren’t doing some good things. They are evangelicals, after all. They are together for the Gospel, for crying out loud.:) Let them serve the Lord as they see fit, and pray that He’ll use them for His glory and the salvation of souls. But don’t join in, because the errors matter too much and dishonour the Lord. Their ministry will go forward just fine without us, and ours can go forward just fine without them. There is no Biblical warrant for joining with that kind of compromise, but it doesn’t mean they are our enemies. Nor does it mean someone hates them if he mentions the problem.

There is really nothing new here, is there? Haven’t we pretty much had all of this before from Steve, just in different terminology?

To be frank, there are no Biblical insights here. Nothing that makes iron sharpen iron, in my opinion.
[Aaron Blumer] One thing that struck me is how often it’s the guys who are really fervent “IFB” flag wavers who later become the most enthusiastic IFB departers. Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church “independent fundamental…” in the first place. And a couple decades later, I’m not far from the same place I started.
Amen! Twenty years ago I would have been to the left of Steve, as I was to most of my friends at college. Now I am on the right of almost every one of them. Funny thing is I haven’t changed much since leaving Lutheranism about 25 years ago. One college friend is now an Episcopal priest. Many are in the church growth/seeker sensitive/emergent movements. One former campus leader who made school rules virtually synonymous with sanctification now cheers for Willow Creek with that same enthusiasm.

Perhaps it was because I was not raised in the IFB that I never considered looking to The Movement as The Source of all things Good (except during a few weak, peer-pressured moments in college). Only God deserves that kind of allegiance. Thus, I am not disenchanted to find that it is not so.

And yet, unlike Steve, I am still a fundamentalist — at least in essence, though I would not use the word in very many contexts.

To me, the problem with the article — it is sad really — is the sense of restlessness and frustration that it gives. I also find a condescending tone in the very post-modern, self-contradictory idea that there has to be some etherial middle ground that contains the real truth on issues like age of the earth, charismatic gifts, etc.

The bottom line is that if Steve would be happier in the EFCA or some other movement, he should go there as we bid him God’s blessings. But the problem is that when he arrives he may still be bothered by the same sense of uncertainty that drives this article.

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

Steve Davis:

In your effort to show that I misrepresent you stated regarding creation:
if I were to teach the traditional 6 day 24 hour creation interpretation I would present it as a valid interpretation but not as the only legitimate way of understanding the text and remaining faithful to Scripture. Personally I find much to commend the view that the 6 days were revelatory days but it’s only a view.
Concerning cessationism you stated:
I would prefer to characterize myself as a “soft” cessationist—that is, open to the possibility that God may in fact use dreams and visions today.
You then stated:
“This is what you call “questioning some widely held doctrines among Fundamentalists.”
Yes, this is part of questioning the widely held doctrines of Fundamentalists. It is also the method of the classic New Evangelical as now used at most all New Evangelical schools. It does not set forth a definite interpretation but merely sets forth several and requests that one take a pick between valid options. Such openness is usually presented in a context of superior scholarship and an alleged more objective approach. Some even claim that such lack of dogmatism is a result of greater spirituality.

By your own admissions I have not misrepresented you.

On creation, In the 1960s Biola taught 6 Day creation in both the Bible department and the science department. Dr. Davidheiser, PHD, Johns Hopkins was the department head. He was author of an extensive book on the Christian and evolution and was a convert from Evolution to 6 day creationism. In 1966 and 1967 a new professor in the science Department was teaching that other theories of creation were valid. A meeting was held with Richard Chase, then VP of academics. Chase refused to let the new teacher go. Davidheiser and another professor, Micah Leo, PHD Rutgers in Physics, both resigned. The new teacher, Urton, MA, Denver University, was retained. Thus two fine creationists with superior credentials and scholarship were allowed to resign and a new teacher with mediocre credentials was retained. This is the historic march of New Evangelicalism with its alleged scholarship and openness. Today, in light of all that has transpired academically, many now feel that if one does not embrace 6 24 Hr day creation they open the door to all sorts of non literal interpretation.

You may disagree with those who are dogmatic about literal 6 day creation. However, please be consistent and understand that you are taking the position of the classic New Evangelical on this subject. You are not a present day defined Fundamentalist on this subject. Many find your open to conjecture approach not acceptable.