The Ringing Call of New Evangelicalism Repeated in the New Calvinism

Nothing unique in this article at all, just a party-line rehash. The assumption of this article is that the New Calvinism is to be judged by the rubric of secondary separation fundamentalism. I don’t know anyone that ever thought it could meet such a criteria in the first place.

It seems that the term “secondary separation” is used to minimize and cloud the real issue of Biblical separation from a disobedient brother as Paul taught in 2 Thess. 3:6-15. John Piper used this term “secondary separation” to justify his invite to Rick Warren.

Piper said at the time, “John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper? That’s called secondary separation issues.”

But it is not secondary separation to separate from Piper. It is Biblical and right based on the above text and on 1 Tim. 5:22, to not be a “partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” Rick Warren should be marked and avoided according to Romans 16:17. And to invite him is to partake of his sins, which puts John Piper in a position of disobedience.

Another article calling for Fundamentalists to be more separate from evil New Calvinists/New New Evangelicals because they associate with men who deny Scriptural teaching on separation, and yet, again, Fundamentalists do not choose to start fairly applying it by cleaning their own house, and dealing with the false teachers within their own movement.

BTW, I though that Calvinists were welcome in the FBFI after the Sweatt incident. After reading Recker’s articles, I don’t see how any Calvinist would feel welcome.

MRecker,

I am curious to know why you state that Greg Boyd is a leading member within Converge? Converge as a denomination censored Greg Boyd because of his open theism views and passed several resolutions condemning Open Theism over a decade ago. Because of this, Greg Boyd has admitted he and his church really don’t have a relationship with Converge so they are looking at switching to the Mennonites because they more closely identify with its Ana-Baptist theology The reason I know these things is because 2 of my supporting churches are converge churches. Overstatements such as this make it difficult to take your writing seriously.

I also found it interesting that you link Leith Anderson with Doug Pagitt because Doug used to be the youth pastor of Leith Anderson’s church. You need to be careful that you are not falling into the logical fallacy of guilt by association. So what if he used to be his youth pastor? Rob Bell used to be one of the pastors at Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (which is an IFCA church) and even planted Mars Hill Bible Church with Calvary Church’s blessing and 1000 people, but there is no relationship whatsoever (there hasn’t been for over a decade) between Calvary Church and Mars Hill Bible/Rob Bell because of Rob Bell’s journey into heretical teaching.

Unless you have done the grunt work of research to discover that Leith Anderson and Wooddale Church have an ongoing relationship with Doug Pagitt and Solomon’s Porch, then you shouldn’t try to make the connection. Same for you stating that Greg Boyd is a leading member of Converge Worldwide. That is why some on SI have made the observation that your research is sloppy.

What would separation tell us about reading Piper’s works? I know a lot of separatists—myself included—who do.

It also strikes me that we ought to differentiate between ecclesiastical cooperation, like sharing pulpits (e.g. Piper/Warren, Piper/BGC) and mission organizations, and simply working together for a common non-ecclesiastical goal—as when Christians partner with Catholics and even Mormons to stop abortion and same sex mirage. One says “all that theology I teach you doesn’t matter”, and the other simply says “we agree to disagree on theology, but must work together on this.” Not sure where the Manhattan Declaration ought to fall.

I believe in separation and practice it, just think that we ought to understand fully what we mean by it. My personal stand is that as I differ with Piper on BGC membership, I can’t be a member of his church (and I’m 90 minutes drive away anyways), but I can, knowing that he personally differs with open theism, read his books in good conscience.

But if you pointed out a view where Piper’s theology had taken a serious detour—say he went a few steps further into charismatic theology—then I’d have to review the books, too.

Brandon: I have never called New Calvinists “evil.” But you ask, how are Independent Baptists to deal with “false teachers within their own movement?”

I would encourage you to go back and read some of the resolutions of the FBFI over the years.( http://fbfi.org/resolutions/) They are really quite good and filled with wisdom, and I do not see one area of “false teaching.” There are wise warnings, however, and one of them was against one that perhaps could be called without our movement, Jack Hyles:

Here is an excerpt of that strong and fearless resolution:

95.17 REGARDING THE DIVISIVE TEACHING OF JACK HYLES ON THE “INCORRUPTIBLE SEED” AS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship exposes and rebukes the heretical teaching of Jack Hyles associated with his peculiar interpretation of I Peter 1:23 in which he asserts that “incorruptible seed” means an “uncorruptible translation” and insists that the only “incorruptible seed is the King James Version of the Bible. Hyles has publicly taught that: (1) no one is saved apart from the King James Version of the Bible; (2) if a soul winner uses any other version of the Bible he is using corruptible [sic] seed; and (3) if a person, in fact, is born again through this other version he is “born again as a child of the devil.” These assertions are absurd and unbiblical.”

I did go back and review some of the consistent positions through the years of the FBFI, here is one regarding John Piper, which is essentially what I attempted to bring out in my article:

Resolution 05—02: On the Ministry of John Piper

While recognizing much that is commendable in the ministry of John Piper, including his emphasis on a passionately God-centered life and his identity as a theological conservative, the FBFI has some genuine concerns about his doctrine and practice. John Piper teaches in his local ministry that miraculous sign gifts are continuing. Piper has also failed to separate from the Baptist General Conference which has deliberately chosen to tolerate the heresy known as open theism in its membership. He also enthusiastically endorses Daniel Fuller, who has championed the attack on the inerrancy of scripture in our generation. The great popularity of Piper‘s writings, especially among younger fundamentalists requires that FBFI warn it members concerning Piper‘s non-separatist position and, for those who read his works, to do so with careful discernment.

That statement is not mean spirited, but it is strong with concern, as it should be, for Piper is New Evangelical in his stand.

[Joel Shaffer]

I also found it interesting that you link Leith Anderson with Doug Pagitt because Doug used to be the youth pastor of Leith Anderson’s church. You need to be careful that you are not falling into the logical fallacy of guilt by association. So what if he used to be his youth pastor?

I was only stating the fact that was also of interest that Anderson was Pagit’s pastor. You can draw your own conclusion from it. My main point in dealing with Anderson was to show that as President of the NAE, he is thoroughly NEW EVANGELICAL, and the book I cited according to Roger Oakland helped “set the tone” for the emergent church that Pagitt helped to form. That, along with the reality that “Converge Worldwide appears to be moving down the path of postmodernism and emergent,” demonstrates at the very least that Anderson is accommodating toward the emergent church philosophy. As president of a large movement, true Bible believers should separate from the NAE.

And Piper never separated from this denomination or from the NAE. The reality is this puts Piper in the center of New Evangelicalism as well, which is thesis of my articles, that New Calvinists are practicing New Evangelical non-separatist principles.

Sorry to hear that you have some churches supporting you in Converge Worldwide denomination. It does not sound they are moving in the right direction.

You said that there is a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Well, many times one is guilty by association. Accomplices to a crime are often convicted by their associations.

This FBFI resolution also relates to the reality that we can be dangerously influenced by those we associate with, which is a Biblical principle, Psalm 1:1; 1 Cor. 15:33.

93.07 REGARDING PREACHING IN VARIOUS PULPITS

The FBF believes that the attitude currently promoted that a pastor can have anyone in his pulpit whom he pleases regardless of his doctrinal position and that he can preach in any pulpit irrespective of its stand on Biblical separation is foolish and ridiculous if we are to maintain Scriptural standards of separation. The history of religious movements shows that this policy always results in compromise and inclusivism.

[Ed Vasicek]

The assumption of this article is that the New Calvinism is to be judged by the rubric of secondary separation fundamentalism. I don’t know anyone that ever thought it could meet such a criteria in the first place.

Here is another excellent FBFI resolution, Ed which shows that some want to disregard separating by condemning Biblical separation as some kind of “secondary separation:”

80. 10 REGARDING THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION

The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship believes that the historical doctrine of Biblical separation is a fundamental doctrine, that true Bible-believers are to be directly and indirectly separate from all types of apostasy, liberalism, new evangelicalism, and pseudo-fundamentalism, and deplores the attempt made by those who call themselves Fundamentalists to hide their “soft” position under the condemnation of secondary separation and continue to operate under the wholly unbiblical course of action of being “tolerant of believers who are tolerant of unbelievers.”

and one more:

82. 05 REGARDING BIBLICAL SEPARATION

The FBF rejects the concept of “secondary” or “Degree” separation, believing that there are no degrees of obedience declared in the Word of God. The FBF believes that according to the Word of God believers are commanded to be equally separated both from disobedient believers as well as from religious apostates, and it affirms the Biblical truth that “partial” obedience is disobedience. In these days of increasing compromise, it calls upon Biblical Fundamentlists to draw clear lines of spiritual distinction between Biblical truth and religious error in obedience to God’s Word.

Brandon, what have I said against the soteriology of Calvinism? Calvinists are welcome in the FBFI, and we have members who are. My series is on the dangers of the NEW Calvinism, not the Five Points of Calvinism. Come on now, you know that better than me! I said this in the intro of my article!

“Let me also be clear that I have not one time in this series said anything negative about traditional Calvinism or the soteriology of Calvinism. In fact, traditional Calvinists like Peter Masters of The Metropolitan Tabernacle have also strongly denounced the dangers of the New Calvinism in his article, New Calvinism: The Merger of Calvinism and Worldliness. ((http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/New-Calvinism-M…)) E.S. Williams, a member of that church has also written a book entitled The New Calvinists: Changing the Gospel and has a website[1] dedicated to clearly unmask some of the hazards within the New Calvinism.”

[Joel Shaffer]

MRecker,

I am curious to know why you state that Greg Boyd is a leading member within Converge?

I won’t quibble, perhaps I should have said, HAS been a leading member? The fact is his church is still listed on the Converge website. Because he is still in Converge, and he is a leading theologian, he pastoring an influential church, is a leading writer, speaker, and has been a leading teacher at one of the group’s schools, Bethel College (he left in 2002), as long as he is in Converge Worldwide, he will remain a leading member because of the leadership and influence he exerts. His influence still influences others.

To your point, Wikipedia says: “In 2012, Woodland Hills Church began exploring Anabaptism and the possibility of affiliating with Mennonite Church USA and the Brethren in Christ. Boyd stated that “we’ve really been kind of growing in this direction since the church started, without knowing what Anabaptism was.”[27] [28] During the exploration, leadership asked the congregation to read Stuart Murray’s The Naked Anabaptist, and the church has met with Anabaptist groups.”

Bottom line is this: Piper stepped down at Bethlehem in 2013, so for a long time, Boyd was a very influential pastor of a church teaching heretical views in the same denomination as Piper. You may quibble with me on my verbal precision, but the fact is Piper did not separate from either the BGC (or Converge) or from the NAE. That is very troubling.

This FBFI resolution expresses my heart desire on this:

02.04 CONCERNING NEW EVANGELICALISM IN FUNDAMENTALISM

Realizing that significant numbers of professing Fundamentalists continue to drift into New Evangelicalism, we grieve over this departure from Biblical separation and call for an unwavering commitment to a bold, militant defense of truth. As Fundamentalists, we must be willing to point out error and deal with it honestly, and when necessary, to separate from New Evangelicalism posing as Fundamentalism. We reaffirm our beliefs and practices concerning ecclesiastical and personal separation, and resolve to model Biblical love, intellectual honesty, diligent study, Scriptural preaching, appropriate debate, Holy Spirit dependence, joyful endurance, pure character, and gentleness of spirit, but deplore and forsake hypocrisy, unapproachableness, rashness, reactionism, contentiousness, and unteachableness.

Google it

You said that there is a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Well, many times one is guilty by association. Accomplices to a crime are often convicted by their associations.

Or guilt by association can become an occasion for the sin of slander. Again, you offer no proof that Doug Pagitt and Leith Anderson have a relationship between their churches right now.

I won’t quibble, perhaps I should have said, HAS been a leading member? The fact is his church is still listed on the Converge website. Because he is still in Converge, and he is a leading theologian, he pastoring an influential church, is a leading writer, speaker, and has been a leading teacher at one of the group’s schools, Bethel College (he left in 2002), as long as he is in Converge Worldwide, he will remain a leading member because of the leadership and influence he exerts. His influence still influences others

Greg Boyd has not been a leading member since he was fired from Bethel for his view on Open Theism (12 years ago). Again, he was censored by Converge Worldwide, He and his church has operated in isolation among Converge. Converge had resolutions that condemned Open Theism. He exerts no influence among Converge. The danger of writing articles like you have written is that you are making several wrong assumptions about Greg Boyd and his relationship with Converge without knowing all of the facts. You build a much stronger case for your article if you had kept to the facts of its association with the NAE or even that Converge still tolerates (though at a minimal level) Greg Boyd. Boyd’s influence influences those outside of Converge, not those within Converge. Unless you have proof that several Converge pastors or churches are being influenced by Greg Boyd, you cannot make that assertion or else it become gossip and slander.

Converge Worldwide also appears to be moving down the path of postmodernism and emergent,

What is your proof that Converge Worldwide is moving down the path of Postmodernism and emergent? You make blanket statements without any examples! Slander!

By the way, The emergent church is dead! Dead! They couldn’t sustain themselves because much of it was built on liberal theology that gutted out the gospel. At its zenith, there was an estimated 150 churches that identified as being emergent (many of these churches no longer exist today) The hilarious and sad part is that they hoodwinked evangelical publishers (some 40 or so books) and even leaders such as Leith Anderson into thinking that they were the next big thing within evangelicalism.

Converge Worldwide plants two churches a week in America. Over 80% of these church become healthy conservative evangelical churches.