Can Fundamental Baptists Find Greater Unity?

Image

In September, Central Seminary (Plymouth, MN) is hosting an unusual event: a conversation among Baptist leaders with greater unity across splinter groups as a major goal. I asked pastor Greg Linscott, who has led the effort, to tell us more about this conversation.

Q. How did this event come about?

A. A few years ago I began to sense the need for First Baptist of Marshall to become connected with a network more national in scope than our longtime historic affiliation with the Minnesota Baptist Association. Our church has established a ministry with S’gaw Karen refugees from Burma/Myanmar. Because of their missionary connections dating all the way back to Adoniram Judson, the Karen tend to default to the ABC-USA when here in the US. But due to significant differences in doctrine and practice, I did not find that an acceptable option.

As we worked to disciple the believers we had influenced, we wanted to be able to familiarize them with churches whose doctrine would emphasize the authority of Scripture and who would be in general agreement with we teach at First Baptist (including specifics such as a young-earth creationist perspective, cessationist position, and pre-trib dispensationalism) but who also had a large enough network nationally that it would be practical to point Karen believers there as they eventually begin to relocate across the US. The GARBC fit those criteria.

Furthermore, in my limited encounters with Regular Baptists in Minnesota, it had seemed to me that congregations in the MBA and MARBC had much in common with one another—certainly as much as they did with churches in their own associations. The two associations had already been jointly supporting a church planter’s efforts in the Twin Cities metro, and the influence of Central Seminary graduates in both Minnesota associations had further served to draw attention to the commonality the two constituencies had with one another.

As I began the process of preparing our church to formally fellowship with the GARBC and MARBC (while still retaining our affiliation with the MBA), I learned that John Greening, National Representative of the GARBC, was lined up to speak to the MARBC’s 2014 annual meeting. This event was to be held the same week as the MBA’s Men’s Fellowship (an event for which I serve as president), where it had been arranged for Mike Harding, who is prominent in the FBFI, to be our speaker. I was also aware of Kevin Bauder’s work on a history of Baptist Fundamentalism (the recently published One In Hope and Doctrine from RBP). To have two prominent individuals from national Baptist organizations in the same state seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up.

I contacted Sam Horn (President of Central Seminary) and Matt Morrell (Pastor at Fourth Baptist) to see if they might be interested in arranging an event featuring these two men alongside Kevin Bauder, addressing the current state of Baptist Fundamentalism and its potential future. From the beginning, they were intrigued and enthusiastic about making something happen. The initial participants quickly agreed to participate. We explored a few possibilities before eventually arriving at the current luncheon format on the Fourth/Central campus. Mike Harding turned out to be unable to attend due to a conflict. Though I was disappointed with Harding’s absence, Dr. Mike Sproul of Tri-City Baptist Church/International Baptist College and Seminary was interested and available, and graciously agreed to participate in the role that had been vacated.

Q. What do you hope to accomplish?

A. I had a conversation with a fellow pastor recently. His church has gone through some significant turmoil and division over the last few months. He lamented the fact that because of some of his own past decisions over the years, he had isolated himself from fellowship with other pastors and churches around him. “No one should have to go through things like this alone,” my friend said, sadly. There is a sense that we need to take that to heart, both locally and on a larger scale. Sorrows shared reduce the weight of the burdens being carried. Celebrating joys and triumphs can encourage and motivate others in their own contexts of ministry. Opportunities can bear more fruit with the enhanced resources of combined efforts.

I think it is fair to say that in the recent past, many parties in these Baptist constituencies have been somewhat distrustful and suspicious of each other. I envision this occasion providing a venue where misunderstandings and misconceptions about one another can be addressed and clarified. Ultimately, the fruits of this conversation may leave us in a position to see if the commonality we share in matters of doctrinal emphasis might prove to be enough of a platform for further collaborative efforts.

This is certainly what I am praying for, and I encourage others to do the same. Our churches already often support many of the same missionaries, send students to many of the same educational institutions, draw on each other for publication and curriculum resources, and so on. Closer working relationships would do nothing but enhance the gospel proclamation and disciple-making efforts of all our churches—not to mention giving a louder collective voice to those championing some doctrinal positions that seem sometimes to be lost in the larger conversation.

Of course, we may also discover that enough differences remain to justify the status quo. The potential benefits that could result from the time taken to have this conversation, however, deserve at least such an effort as this event is striving to provide.

Q. What’s planned, in general?

A. I anticipate two panel sessions beginning with some prepared questions, prefaced by a brief historical overview by Bauder, and concluding with analysis and to some degree, possible vision casting for the future coming from Chris Anderson, Matt Morrell, and myself. Lunch will be provided, and a freewill offering will be received to help with expenses.

Q. What do you think has prevented conversations of this sort in the past and how is the situation today different?

A. It is a historical fact that there were differences in influential personalities that became significant factors in the formation of these separate Baptist identities and organizations. Further complicating this historically, there were competing strategies in relation to the Northern Baptist Convention early on. Time moves on, and the issues and personalities of the earliest days are no longer directly relevant to the circumstances of today—but residual tension lingers. Some remember later concerns that developed that were legitimate at the time, but fail to acknowledge how those legitimate concerns were eventually addressed. Some focus on the contrasts the “other side” has in methods and practices they tolerate—while failing to acknowledge similar ranges that exist in their own sphere of influence.

I do not mean to say that differences do not exist. At the same time, I think it fair to say that the range of differences can be as easily observed from one individual congregation to another, regardless of organizational affiliation. When it comes to unifying matters at an organizational level, the principles themselves are remarkably similar.

One thing that has helped pave the way for something like this conversation is what I like to call “cross-pollination.” Here in Minnesota, as I have already mentioned, we have Central Seminary graduates serving in MBA and MARBC congregations. Similar observations could be made here for graduates of Faith, Maranatha, BJU, and Northland. Educational institutions have provided a venue for developing familiarity in working relationships. The Internet has helped, as over the last decade, people have been able to access content and interact with individuals whose ideas they can affirm, but whose connections might not always be the familiar ones. There has been some intentional bridge building on national conference platforms, too.

Q. The answer to this one probably depends somewhat on the outcome of this event, but can you tell us more about what you’d like to see happen in the future?

A. As you say, I think that much remains to be seen, and will be influenced by the preceding panel sessions. I wouldn’t want to presume to speak for any of the others. At the same time, as Bauder has observed, “unity is a function of what unites.” It is my prayer that whatever else might happen, those who come would leave encouraged, being more aware of the degree of unity they share with these like-minded brothers.

If you want anything more specific than that, you’ll have to come and join the conversation!

Discussion

Don,

I’ll repost what I just said in my last post:

Personally, I don’t see Chris’s decision as terribly dissimilar to Kevin Bauder publishing a book with Zondervan, or John Vaughn representing the FBFI on a platform with people like Jack Schaap and Clarence Sexton, or BJU featuring Sexton as a speaker, or Dan Forrest having his music performed at Carnegie Hall by a choir and orchestra from a non-Fundamentalist church or institution. People might wrestle with the legitimacy of application- and I probably would wrestle with it, myself, if I were confronted with such a choice. But I don’t think that his reaching a decision that is different than the one I might have made is grounds to separate. I admire what he has written, use it regularly, and recommend it without reservation. If others are recognizing its value outside of our boundaries and desire to use it, I rejoice that the truth God has used Chris to proclaim is getting a wide audience. I extend the same grace to my brother Chris, in fact, that I extend to those of you in the FBFI who allow yourselves to be connected with questionable bibliology like Sexton, or divisive and spiteful personalities like Lou Martuneac. I don’t discard the value of the relationships just because your relationships extend further than mine might or do. There’s room for differences.

I think you’d have more of a point if Chris’s relationship involved more than music. As it stands, I don’t think anyone would realistically confuse Swindoll and Anderson and their distinctive positions and emphases. A hymnwriter and a noted arranger, whose work is regularly used in Fundamentalist churches, cooperated on a recording where the hymnwriter was completely in charge of the lyrical content articulated. As others have articulated to you in the past, there are plenty of relational inconsistencies your alma mater has made in the area of politics and arts. This seems to me to be in a similar vein. We could look at the past inconsistencies represented in our hymnals (Spafford and “It is Well” for example). We could look at BJU including works by the Gettys in several of their recent recordings.

The point here is not to criticize or affirm any of those decisions. The point of our meeting, and the point I’m trying to steer this discussion back to, is that we can and should see the points of commonality we share, rather than cutting off all fellowship- or at least making it very awkward because of all the suspicions and whispers- because we can’t agree on something like what choir should be permitted to record a Fundamentalist’s music.

I want to say quite distinctly that if that is your only reason to question this effort, then it is a poor reason indeed. If anything, that is a topic to be deliberated between friends, rather than an obstruction preventing a friendship from being fleshed out. The criticism might be worth sharing in the right context, but to do it here… now… as the first comment after the report (!)… it’s like you’ve been sitting on this issue for almost two years, just waiting for the opportunity to get another chance to get that jab in. You could have aired that concern when the interview first was published on SI… or when I announced Chris would be included way back in the spring. Whether you mean it to be this way or not, these comments, in this venue, make you appear very petty and mean-spirited, and frankly are illustrative of why conversations like the one we had can be so hard to pull off- it can be tiresome having to deal with the naysayers.

Well, I’m not going to stop trying. There is a time for criticism and picking nits. This isn’t that time. I’m not trying to get anyone to sit down with Swindoll. I’m not even trying to get anyone to sit down with “conservative evangelicals.” This is an effort to get dispensationalist, separatist Baptists at the table, talking. I’m glad that there are men in the FBFI like Sproul and Harding who are willing to sit at that table, even if people like you appear to be doing anything you can to distract from that effort. We are at a stage where trust needs to be earned, goodwill needs to be extended, diplomacy practiced. Many times- even most of the time- you need a Paul… but there were times when even Paul needed a Barnabas. Don, we need a Barnabas now. If that isn’t going to be you, at least let some other try to step into that role without further interference?! I admire your tenacity- I really do. If there is any doubt- who recruited you to SI and made you a moderator way back when? But my goodness!

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg, you still haven’t answered my question. You like to throw in lots of extras. Not relevant.

You are the one who is touting Chris as a go-to guy whom we should all listen to. Fine. But it would be nice to know what kinds of boundaries he has in mind when it comes to fundamentalism. The issue isn’t the connections or inconsistencies or problems of his questioners, but why should his questioners listen to him?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson]

You are the one who is touting Chris as a go-to guy whom we should all listen to. Fine. But it would be nice to know what kinds of boundaries he has in mind when it comes to fundamentalism.

Don’s own words betray what is important to him. “Boundaries when it comes to fundamentalism.”

How about boundaries that are related to truth Don? Maybe if you cared about those boundaries a bit more, you would see what everyone is trying to tell you—that it is absurd to keep throwing rocks at Anderson for something so silly when you have real problems in your own camp. I guess those problems don’t matter though because Martuneac/Sexton and company are self-proclaimed fundamentalists.

I answered it here. Again, to refresh your memory:

I am not going to discuss Swindoll here, because he wasn’t on the panel. If you want to start a new thread, feel free. I would be happy to participate.

And to be clear, I think Chris is a fine speaker and good voice, but that doesn’t mean I am anointing him as a “go-to guy whom we should all listen to,” any more than I think I am the one who should be doing the anointing. I see Chris as representative of where many of his peers are (something that was confirmed after the panel, BTW, by a lot of guys who approached him afterward and basically said they could identify with a lot of what he said about his background and experiences). You want to make this about anointing new leaders and toppling old ones, and that is really not what this is about at all.

“Why should his questioners listen to him?” Because they care about the great ideas of Fundamentalism, and wish to see them perpetuated beyond their own life spans. Chris has a sense of urgency, vision, and drive, like many of his peers, and rises above them in some ways because of his gifts, but in the end, is not intent on “jumping ship.” He’s a separatist. He’s committed to Fundamentalist ideas. He’s got questions. He sees things that can be admired in those he has disagreements with. Guys like you need guys like him… and vice versa.
As much as anything, this meeting was about getting people connected who hadn’t been, so much. While it might be interesting to know everyone’s boundaries, those boundaries are going to vary. You have a different boundary than I do on the KJV only types. Our Iowa brethren have drawn a boundary on “Baptist in the name” that not all Baptist Fundamentalists are comfortable endorsing to the degree they did. Your own fellowship disagrees on whether or not you can use Getty music. I’m sure there are a lot more things we could bring up.

There are times for erecting boundaries, and there are times for building bridges. As this continues, I am wondering if you even have a bridge-building mode in you.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

In case you were wondering, that isn’t really an answer.

When you talk about bridge building, you sound like a politician. What are you trying to build?

But you are right, I am not much into bridge building. I am more interested in being loyal to God and his word, as best I can. I don’t build bridges to men who could write Grace Awakening.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I said I would take you up on another thread. If you really want your answer, the option is there for you. I will not discuss the matter further in this thread, nor continue to address any specific references, jabs or accusations about it.

You say politician like it’s always a bad thing. Politics happen when people get together and have to find ways to work with each other. Webster’s:

5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

As far as what am I trying to build? Coalition around common principles for the sake of increased momentum for our (biblical) ideas, and productivity for the building of Christ’s churches. Why did American Baptists get together in the first place, historically speaking? Missions. See: Luther Rice and Adoniram Judson. Cooperative efforts can only enhance the efforts and effectiveness of Baptist Fundamentalists.

As much as you want to seem to paint any bridge building as bad, it is a reality. You have to do it in evangelism. You have to do it when you are discipling people. You have to find ways to do it in a church. You have to do it in any successful marriage. If you’re constantly erecting borders between spouses, it’s a recipe for disaster.
In this specific context, we have spoken about some very specific boundaries, too- including Young Earth creationism, dispensationalism (I would even say pre-trib/pre-mil), separatism, cessationism… The boundaries are as important as the bridges.

You paint this matter as binary- either you are loyal to God and His Word, or you are a politician building bridges to all that is destructive. My Bible does tell me to preach the whole counsel of God, and “speak the things which become sound doctrine…”- but it also tells me to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and as much as lies within me to live at peace with all men. There is a time for loyalty to God’s Word, but there is also a time to foster like-mindedness between brethren. The two aren’t antithetical to one another. Both require our attention.

I have said about all I can say to you, though. I will not discuss anything more to do with the specific matter you raised in this thread. I will continue to converse about things related to the matter addressed in the original post.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

To see fundamental Baptists seeking for unity among themselves is a good thing. The distorted practice of separation from brethren that has been expressed in this thread has been the most prominent and detrimental feature of fundamentalism, yet its practitioners wear it as a badge of honor.

If this works out will we seek a split in the FBFI? Will Don separate from Mike because Mike won’t separate from Chris?

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

[Ron Bean]

To see fundamental Baptists seeking for unity among themselves is a good thing. The distorted practice of separation from brethren that has been expressed in this thread has been the most prominent and detrimental feature of fundamentalism, yet its practitioners wear it as a badge of honor.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^

I personally am sick & tired of the “It’s just you and me brother, and I’m not so sure about you…” mentality.

[Ron Bean]

If this works out will we seek a split in the FBFI? Will Don separate from Mike because Mike won’t separate from Chris?

I know Ron is half joking, but this is the result of 50 or more years of one-sided emphasis on separation without the call to biblical unity.

Don seems awful close to illustrating Titus 3:10 in this thread, and I hope other FBFI members take note.

Greg, I hope we will be able to download audio or watch the video from this event. I am encouraged by the effort.

I think Keith Robertsson said it well, “some friction is only eliminated with some funerals.” Not surprisingly, it will be post-modern Christians that could make fundamentalism rational again.