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

[Aaron Blumer] SI has posted a wide variety of views on things from day one. We had an extended back and forth with Phil Johnson (look up “Dead Right”) way back in 2005. And the same week we published this perspective from Steve, we also published John Whitcomb’s call to avoid the central error of neo-evangelicalism (divorcing truth and love).
Aaron,

I for one don’t fault SI for running the article — even though I have strong disagreements with it. Perhaps articles should be run in different categories — much like a newspaper would distinguish between local news, national news, opinion/editorial, letters to the editor, etc. Steve’s article could be run with a heading something like, “Another View…” Just a thought. I guess that would go the whole point of the purpose, direction and goals for the whole site, which I do not have a hand in determining. But I do say thank you for all of your efforts with it! :)
[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.
Hmmm… Now there is an interesting post! You have me thinking. I am wondering if this really applies when someone with advanced degrees is given the platform of writing an article in which he is trying to convince us of a theological/philosophical position. If so, what would such correction and restoration look like? What do we do if he does not accept? Who gets to form the consensus on any of these points?

(My questions are sincere, not tongue in cheek…)

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

[Jim Peet] Thanks
No, that’s not the church I planted. That church is in South Philly and I was not aware it was still there although I heard of it years ago.

Here is the link to the one we planted. It is now called Living Hope Church. http://livinghopephilly.com/Living_Hope_Church/Home.html

The name was changed a year or so ago when the congregation sold the building purchased when I was there and bought another building in a better location in the same general part of the city - Northwest Philly.

The church has struggled like many city ministries but has been faithful and has had the same pastor for several years now, a Calvary guy with whom we have a good relationship. I’ve been to services there and the pastor and others on the leadership team have visited with us. We’re not close enough to see each other regularly.

I’m not sure if the church stills considers itself IFB. The guys there are good guys and I think all the leadership team is connected with Calvary, students or graduates. I’m not sure how much has changed. Some changes might be Bible version, polity, eschatology ??? - premillennial not sure if pre-trib or at least as emphasis. I don’t want to speak for them on that. Their music might be blended but still fairly traditional I think. Their dress may be more casual than 30 years ago. In any event what has not changed - the gospel - is far more important than what has changed

[Paul J. Scharf]
[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.
Hmmm… Now there is an interesting post! You have me thinking. I am wondering if this really applies when someone with advanced degrees is given the platform of writing an article in which he is trying to convince us of a theological/philosophical position. If so, what would such correction and restoration look like? What do we do if he does not accept? Who gets to form the consensus on any of these points?

(My questions are sincere, not tongue in cheek…)
I wonder too, Bro. Scharf. I’ve seen, over the years, many attempts at correction and restoration that were very much prone to one extreme or the other. There’s the heretic who needs to be admonished and rejected, but then for some, it’s the goodness of God that leads to repentance. If I think someone is in error and needs to be restored, how do I ascertain which approach to take, or should I go for a balance of the two? How do I, or anyone else, give evidence that we are indeed ‘considering ourselves’ while trying to explain why we believe someone else is in error? How, on an internet forum especially, do we display a genuine concern rather than a disdainful scolding?

It seemed to me, in reading the article, that Bro. Davis has been very open about how his experiences shaped his thought processes and influenced his path. I very much appreciate him for that. My husband and I have been through similar experiences and yet come to very different conclusions than Bro. Davis. We’ve become even more ‘conservative’, if you will, and draw lines deeper than ever because we’ve see more long term dangers in compromise, and unhealthy consequences of cooperation with certain belief systems/groups. But I completely agree with Bro. Davis that many of the lines that are drawn in IFBism are far from having solid Scriptural ground and more rooted in tradition than in sound doctrine.

Aaron, SI is a privately held internet site. You are under no obligation to any group and those of us who choose to post here do so as guests.

It is not inappropriate for SI to give Steve Davis a place to publish his articles since they are about Fundamentalism and his journey by doctrine and world view away from Fundamentalism’s widely held views. An internet site such as SI certainly may publish articles of both criticism and praise.

However, I do find it disconcerting to have a those recognized as volunteer staff of SI ( moderator and administrator) make fun of or criticize those who have disagreed with Steve Davis and his articles. On this thread both Jim Peet and Susan R. have chosen to do so, as well as you. These remarks were about the posters not the subject.

I also find it odd that you feel a need to defend the SI site against outside criticism from what may be termed the village idiots of Fundamentalism. What they say may at times be right as even a broken clock is right two times a day. But no one should bother with the clock at all unless it is fixed.

However, it is my impression that SI does have its prejudices and will deflect just criticism without giving it proper consideration. I will be 72 in 10 days. I, like many other older Christians and Pastors get frustrated with the level ground of the internet. The novices express dogmatic opinions and rebuke seasoned church leaders. The little educated wax eloquent with the PHDs. The village idiots get to stand in the public square and yell until someone listens. But with all the drawbacks, the internet, and sites like SI, have contributed to the fast dissemination of information and the challenge of interaction with ideas. Many of the senior age group, and church leaders, consider the internet like casting Pearls before swine. However, I have found it a valued additional venue for information and spiritual challenge.

IMHO SI appears to give more space to dissenting voices than affirming voices on the subject of Fundamentalism. However, that is just my impression. A statistical analysis may prove me wrong.

There are many of the “Evangelical Wimpus” species hiding in the skin of the Fundamentalist species. They are without a strong enough backbone to support a skeletal structure of doctrinal dogmatism. They often find certain doctrines or criticisms offensive. On the internet they find it easier to speak of being offended by a post rather than speaking to the subject. They often speak of “tone” rather substance. I consider these the pesky Gnats of the internet. Little to say but just happen to be offended by what you say. In my generation if you offended someone you asked if they should have been offended and perhaps it indicated what you said hit home and was right.

Aaron, SI is not perfect, but so what. It’s OK for human behavior this side of heaven.

Thank you for your efforts on SI

[Bob T.]
[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.

Funny how Scripture tells us in one verse to bear one another’s burdens, and then two verses later tells us that every man has to bear his own.
Now comes the site administrator with some superior wisdom for the church leadership (Pastors) on here.

First, your scripture from Galatians would probably apply to the author of Galatians himself would it not?

Second, if you read the entire book you will find that Paul dealt with the Galatians in a direct and harsh manner. He also uses such in some other epistles. The burdens of Galatians 6 are not doctrinal error….. This is not the subject of this SI thread. No one has accused Steve of sins of the flesh.

Third, the object of my replies to Steve Davis, an over age fifty, experienced Pastor, was primarily to expose the errors of his ways and the inappropriate ongoing compromises, and to warn others of what was and is occurring. There is little doubt that when one writes about the subjects Steve has, and in the manner he has, he is trying to influence others, especially those who are younger. I have seen the almost exact same thing, involving the same doctrines and views many, many, times over the last five decades.

Fourth, Your attempt to rebuke some who are Elders (Pastors) with such an off topic and inapplicable scripture to the situation here is probably indicative of one of the reasons why women are not allowed to serve as elders. Yes, I am aware that this is the internet, not church, and great latitude regarding gender roles is normally appropriate, But you are attempting to rebuke church leadership (Pastors) and you yourself have severely misjudged the situation.
Well Bob I must say that sometimes you leave me speechless and I wonder if I should reply. I have a few spare minutes while sitting here in prison and decided to perhaps against my better judgment.

I do thank you that there is no accusation of sins of the flesh (although there are plenty of struggles with the flesh). I’m not sure what you mean by the “errors of [my] ways and the inappropriate ongoing compromises.” I may truly be in error on some things I’ve written because I haven’t gotten it right yet as others seem to. But compromises?

So I am not hard-line on a particular creation interpretation but open to correction (Dr. McCabe and I have had some friendly correspondence in the past and I respect his scholarship), question dispensationalism without an agenda of anti-dispensationalism, am softer on cessationism yet continuationists would not claim me, and reject extreme and unbiblical separatism (as I see it). If those are errors and/or compromises then I am guilty.

I do want to influence people in a positive way, young or old. When things like this are laid out others can judge for themselves. This isn’t a popularity contest. But I want others to see that they can enjoy larger God-honoring, gospel-centered fellowship through our union with Christ, our submission to the authority of Scripture and the love of the truth, our commitment to evangelism and discipleship, and that we need not be trapped in the scandal of divisive Christianity when it is not about the truth, when we can disagree with a brother, strongly at times, and continue to speak the truth in love, and where we don’t need to agree on these and other issues in order to together serve our God and Savior. Disagree but don’t divide unless the Scripture compels it.

I do think your attitude toward Susan is at least ungentlemanly and worse with your “Now comes the site administrator with some superior wisdom for the church leadership (Pastors) on here” and “probably indicative of one of the reasons why women are not allowed to serve as elders.” You owe her an apology.

That’s all for now. Back to jail.

[Bob T.] However, I do find it disconcerting to have a those recognized as volunteer staff of SI ( moderator and administrator) make fun of or criticize those who have disagreed with Steve Davis and his articles. On this thread both Jim Peet and Susan R. have chosen to do so, as well as you. These remarks were about the posters not the subject.
I wasn’t making fun of you! I do think you are grumpy and needlessly combative. I think you were wrong to label Steve a neo-evangelical!

He’s not a fundamentalist by his own admission. Not every non-fundamentalist is a neo*.

As for me:
  • I am a cessationist
  • I am a young earth creationist
  • I believe in congregational government
  • I believe and practice Biblical separation
  • I’ve given up on the label fundamentist. I’m sick of “labels” and being labeled. (Holding my breath for your response … “Peet’s a neo*(something) or pseudo*”

[Aaron Blumer]

James: there’s really nothing insulting about that. It’s just more direct. Steve has been pretty clear about what he thinks lacks value in much of “IFB.” It’s OK on both sides.
Hello Aaron,

I understand that individuals may have contentious discussions at times (and have seen them on SI regularly). That is not what I have an issue with. It is the little insults (needling) which have been mixed in at times which I have an issue with. Rational individuals can easily have discussions in which they do not agree on a point. They can each present their positions and where they feel the other person’s position is incorrect. But, when they are starting to toss in an occasional personal attack (bring into question intelligence, thought, care, concern, etc. of another person in the discussion) whether directly or through insinuation then the discussion has gone from discussing a point to uncaring personal attacks (politicians are notorious for this approach). For me, the determining factor would be whether I would talk to my children about their words and tactics in a conversation should they do the same thing. In this conversation I would have definitely talked to my children about their discussion style as being immature and one involving personal attack rather than discussing the points at hand.

I could go through the various postings but would rather avoid blatantly pointing out specific quotes for fear that someone might feel I was picking on them individually when that is not what I desire. I have no problem with discussions, even contentious discussions. I do have problems when individuals stoop to the childish discussion style of personal attack which I would not accept from my children since it is inappropriate and insulting. Also, retaliation/rebuttal in like manner is not appropriate either (the ‘two wrongs…’ concept).

Have a nice day all…

Who wrote:
Fourth, Your attempt to rebuke some who are Elders (Pastors) with such an off topic and inapplicable scripture to the situation here is probably indicative of one of the reasons why women are not allowed to serve as elders. Yes, I am aware that this is the internet, not church, and great latitude regarding gender roles is normally appropriate, But you are attempting to rebuke church leadership (Pastors) and you yourself have severely misjudged the situation.
OK where we can agree:
  • … women are not allowed to serve as elders. Response: YUP … no disagreement with this phrase
  • … this is the internet, not church. Response: YUP
Where we don’t agree: “you are attempting to rebuke church leadership “. Was she?

On this point: “you yourself have severely misjudged the situation”. Response: OK … debate the issues don’t raise the gender issue!

On behalf of the moderation / admin team: We regard Susan as a peer.

[Jim Peet]
[Bob T.] However, I do find it disconcerting to have a those recognized as volunteer staff of SI ( moderator and administrator) make fun of or criticize those who have disagreed with Steve Davis and his articles. On this thread both Jim Peet and Susan R. have chosen to do so, as well as you. These remarks were about the posters not the subject.
I wasn’t making fun of you! I do think you are grumpy and needlessly combative. I think you were wrong to label Steve a neo-evangelical!

He’s not a fundamentalist by his own admission. Not every non-fundamentalist is a neo*.

As for me:
  • I am a cessationist
  • I am a young earth creationist
  • I believe in congregational government
  • I believe and practice Biblical separation
  • I’ve given up on the label fundamentist. I’m sick of “labels” and being labeled. (Holding my breath for your response … “Peet’s a neo*(something) or pseudo*”
  • Now perhaps this is where one of SIs problem is.

    You are right not every non fundamentalist is not a Neo Evangelical. However, Steve Davis has clearly articulated where he has changed and what he now believes. Or where he is not sure what he beleives, such as creation. This is not conservative evangelicalism. MacArthur rebukes non 6 day creationists in much, much, more harsh terms than I ever have. I have a couple friends who are still behind the curve and Gap Theorists. What Steve has articulated is classic Fuller Seminary. If you or others cannot recognize that then perhaps that is why many who post on SI treat those who post affimativlely for Fundamentalism are attacked by SI(as you have just done).

    Does anyone see any value yet in the article?

    Steve is arguing for unity on the basis of a more accurate understanding of historic fundamentalism.

    Debate this:

    Conservative evangelicals are the true legacy of historic fundamentalists.

    [See my previous post above, #54.]

    [Jim Peet] Who wrote:
    Fourth, Your attempt to rebuke some who are Elders (Pastors) with such an off topic and inapplicable scripture to the situation here is probably indicative of one of the reasons why women are not allowed to serve as elders. Yes, I am aware that this is the internet, not church, and great latitude regarding gender roles is normally appropriate, But you are attempting to rebuke church leadership (Pastors) and you yourself have severely misjudged the situation.
    OK where we can agree:
    • … women are not allowed to serve as elders. Response: YUP … no disagreement with this phrase
    • … this is the internet, not church. Response: YUP
    Where we don’t agree: “you are attempting to rebuke church leadership “. Was she?
    On this point: “you yourself have severely misjudged the situation”. Response: OK … debate the issues don’t raise the gender issue!

    On behalf of the moderation / admin team: We regard Susan as a peer.
    Susan stated: “The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.”

    This is clearly an attempt to rebuke those who posted in disagreement with Steve Davis and who were church leaders (Pastors).


    Also, it is the hight of hypocrisy for you to state: “On this point: “you yourself have severely misjudged the situation”. Response: OK … debate the issues don’t raise the gender issue!

    Susan posted against posters and not to the issue. Both she and you posted on this thread against the posters and ignoring the issues raised on the thread. You attempted to diminish my post by the use of comic imagery. Susan attempted to diminish effect of the posts disagreeing with Steve Davis by raising a false issue of compassion and rebuking church leaders for their lack thereof. Now you indicate that I did not speak to the issues by mentioning the gender issue? Susan raised the gender issue when she made such a remark!

    Now you come attempting to defend a fellow “peer” and in so doing again raise the issue by not speaking to the subject. Well, the SI “peers have set a great example of not speaking to the subject. Susan raised the gender issue by her off the wall remark. Your sole initial remark was a cartoon. Frankly, I find both your posts and Susan posts on this thread lacking of true compassion and a lack of appreciation the serious nature of the subject. Steve Davis has been given a forum to post several articles asserting and arguing for his newly found doctrinal enlightenment, and alleged scholarly doubts, after an alleged broader exposure at other schools. The articles were all written to influence and persuade. They were dangerous to sound doctrine and to young Christians or those of unsettled convictions. Doubts about literal creation and advocating present day dreams and visions have no place in sound churches and are wholly not according scripture. If one wants such enlightenment they can find it today at Fuller Seminary, the flag ship of New Evangelical academics and ministry preparation. You will also find the consequences of such a doctrinal journey there. They include Neo Orthodoxy, doubts and assertions against the inerrancy of scripture, the right of women to be Elders, and the validity of the Evangelical homosexual lifestyle.

    True men of compassion will seek to warn and rescue. This is not just a game of ideas. It involves people, movements, and the battle for the Bible. It has been going on for decades. To Steve, he may see himself as this nice sincere guy who is more open and seeking truth and true loving fellowship. The reality is that doctrines and ideas are not separate parts of a puzzle that stand alone they are constantly being put together to form a larger mosaic with larger consequences. Doubt literal creation today and tomorrow your friends with the guy who doubts the parting of the red Sea or the other miracles not understood. Yes, it is a slippery slope. That is undeniable. We have a whole lot of history as prima facie evidence.

    Since SI did not have the common sense to see steve to the door after his series of articles on doctrine. Someone at least needed to get him out the door and not let it hit him. After all, standing in the door and saying I’m leaving and repeatedly telling us all the bad that are making him leave may make him feel better but does no one else any good.

    I view those who are willing to expose and warn as also those men of integrity who show true compassion.

    [Bob T.] Doubts about literal creation and advocating present day dreams and visions have no place in sound churches and are wholly not according scripture. If one wants such enlightenment they can find it today at Fuller Seminary, the flag ship of New Evangelical academics and ministry preparation. You will also find the consequences of such a doctrinal journey there. They include Neo Orthodoxy, doubts and assertions against the inerrancy of scripture, the right of women to be Elders, and the validity of the Evangelical homosexual lifestyle.

    Doubt literal creation today and tomorrow your friends with the guy who doubts the parting of the red Sea or the other miracles not understood. Yes, it is a slippery slope. That is undeniable. We have a whole lot of history as prima facie evidence.
    Bob. You continue to misrepresent me. I have never doubted literal creation. My point is that there are other valid interpretations that are faithful to Scripture that do not involve accepting YEC. If you disagree with that, fine. I But you take youe misrepresentation of my postion and then make all kinds of imaginary links.

    Steve

    [Don P] Debate this:

    Conservative evangelicals are the true legacy of historic fundamentalists.
    It’s been hashed over and over again.

    It ignores the separatist views of the old fundies. They were manifestly separatists, seeking to separate by purging their denominations until that failed, then seeking to separate by withdrawing. Riley came out eventually, too.

    It ignores the history of the last 60 years. “Fundamentalist” is not a Biblical term. Conservative evangelicals withdrew from fundamentalism and said they were different from it. You can’t just shrug and say, “They didn’t know what they were talking about.”

    It ignores the practice of conservative evangelicals over the years. John Mac and Chuck Swindoll were preaching at Biola at the same time Biola was refusing to do anything about liberal or neo-orthodox teachers (or whatever they were)in their Bible department, and increasing their ties to Fuller, and wildly endorsing their sociology professor who admitted he gave abortion counselling and took girls to get abortions. Most popular professor on campus, and always pushed forward as a speaker, etc. I was there. One of my professors had the integrity to resign — he was asked a question in class, he stopped, and said, “I find I cannot answer that question without violating the school’s doctrinal statement,” and walked out of class. The students had known for years, and been complaining, but the school would do nothing. We heard Johnny Mac in chapel and quite the opposite in class, too often.

    It ignores the denials of conservative evangelicals that they are fundamentalists.

    I do see a difference between conservative evangelicals and neo-evangelicals. They’ve staked out a middle ground between the neos and the fundies. That’s fine. That’s where they are, and that’s where they believe they should be. I wouldn’t want them to do anything they don’t believe is of the Lord. That goes for Steve, too.

    But you have to rather ignore a lot of things to call them fundamentalists. Believers, committed Christians, good Bible teachers, brothers in Christ, sure, and praise the Lord. But there are differences, and separation is Biblical. Not everyone practices it Biblical, but EVERYTHING gets practiced unbiblically by a lot of people.

    From your prior post:
    Personally, I am grieved when brothers and sisters in Christ separate from me and reject my presence because I don’t agree with them on every issue even though I hold to the fundamentals of the faith.
    If anyone separates because you don’t agree with them on every issue, they are divisive, and you should separate from them. The Scriptures say so.

    But no one on this thread has advocated that kind of separation, so you have engaged in exactly the thing to which you objected:
    That we miss opportunities for growth and service when we demonize those we disagree with.
    You demonized the separatist position by saying A) that it is frivolous and B) that it is demonizing. As far as I know, every person on this thread who disagrees with Steve has called him a brother. So who is demonizing? Perhaps the person who throws out that term.

    My last word on this thread: if what Steve is describing is fundamentalism, then the term has no value. There is no distinction between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. Few fundamentalists and fewer conservative evangelicals believe that. Most people on both sides of this divide (and there is a divide) see value in defining the terms differently.

    If you ask knowledgeable fundies what really distinguishes them from conservative evangelicals, they will say, “Separation is the main thing.” If you ask knowledgeable conservative evangelicals what distinguishes them, they will say, “Separation is the main thing.” Both may trot out some cultural stuff, but mostly, it’s separation.

    If you want to build some idealistic “what fundamentalism was 100 years ago” theory, and say that cons. evang. are closer to it, I would say no one cares. The word has moved on from that. As a result, the cons. evang. don’t want it and the fundies do. The only ones who want to blur the line are those moving from the fundie side across the line, and don’t want to admit that they’ve moved, at least in principle. So they’ll say that they are still in keeping with what fundamentalism always was, in principle. But they have moved, in practice at least. They are now right where the conservative evangelicals have always been. They can’t really take their old label with them, because their new friends don’t want it and their old friends don’t want to relinquish it. By trying to do so, everyone feels like the “movers”, by redefining words, are causing confusion about what our positions are. Nobody likes that.

    You can’t wash away 60 years of history as if it didn’t happen.

    Who said:
    the SI “peers have set a great example of not speaking to the subject
    I can only speak for myself not the others on the Mod/Admin team

    I have chosen to not post on every topic / thread. I have found it wearying. I doubt I can demonstrate this but I would suppose in 5 years or so on S/I, I have expressed myself on topics such as 6 day creationism, cessationism, etc. My doctrinal statement addresses these points (link below my signature)

    About:
    Since SI did not have the common sense to see steve to the door after his series of articles on doctrine
    Where is Steve in violation of the S/I doctrinal statement? Please show me and we will “see him to the door”

    Another question for Steve (if you aren’t sick of this thread already!):

    You said:
    Here is the link to the one we planted. It is now called Living Hope Church. http://livinghopephilly.com/Living_Hope_Church/Home.html

    The name was changed a year or so ago when the congregation sold the building purchased when I was there and bought another building in a better location in the same general part of the city - Northwest Philly.
    OK … you’ve changed over 30 years

    I would guess that Living Hope has changed over 30 years as well (besides the name). I visited the church website and
    • The have a plurality of elders
    • Looks like they have a good doctrinal statement
    • They even use a guitar in worship
    So I would surmise that they have changed (for the better in my view) in 30 years

    Now the question: How is your new church plant different (if at all) than the church you planted is today!?