NIU has entered into a “strategic partnership” with The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

I appreciate your response and have a better understanding of what I believe you are aiming at. I think we agree more than we disagree on the priorities of Biblical fundamentalism - especially on some of the problems and issues that got us to this point. I agree with most all of your diagnosis.

I guess personally my attempt at solving the problem comes in the form of trying to preach and write as well as any of the “C and left” guys you reference and praying that the Lord will use my efforts. I’m sure that is your heart as well.

Yes, we do live in strange times. May God give us wisdom for the days ahead in a way that we have never yet experienced!

Indeed Paul - brothers are brothers regardless as if they are in the ABC or to the left or right. Amen to your intent and means in ministry.

One more point of clarity on the initial ideas behind that ABC taxonomy - part of my motivation was to suggest that at times it’s fine that just A’s hang together - or just B’s - or just C’s. I wanted to suggest that there can be great benefit to the body of fundamentalism if there were occasions when all of us (ABC’s) could hang together for a specific purpose/occasion. How much better to talk too each other than about each other! I believe the next shepherd’s conference (March 2015) where the topic of Biblical inerrancy will be tackled would be something that could bring all types of fundamentalist men together - it is a fundamental of the faith!

Straight Ahead!

jt

So, does A = Awful, B = Best, & C = Compromise? ;-)!

Everyone has to have their own taxonomy - if that works for you then straight ahead bro!

:)

jt

Here’s another thought. I know several young 30-somethings who were enthusiastic about the Type C guys that Joel mentioned, who were turned off by fundamentalism’s turf war against them. These guys went to Northland and then drifted away. This move will bring such men back, I have already seen it.

Don’t forget about the numbers of former fundamentalists who would still be comfortable with a place like the new Northland.

[Paul J. Scharf]

Also, if your assessment is correct, I am wondering what it says about the future of some of the theology that many of the schools you list have historically stood for, specifically in the realm of dispensationalism. After all, let’s remember that many of us went to those schools - not SBTS or comparable places - and we did so for specific reasons that still resonate in our hearts.

thinking about this. Is dispensationalism a fundamental? I know it is a distinction, but us it essential? Is this why fundamentalism resists change and resists giving a right hand to type C movements?

Bob,

It’s a little more complicated than that. There have been those in the GARBC, for example, that opposed giving TFC scholarships to a place like BJU because they weren’t exclusively Baptist, even as some historically enjoyed fellowship across denominational distinctives in settings like the ACCC. With something like dispensationalism, you can have some kind of fellowship with disagreement over the issue, but for some of us, it is similar to fellowship with paedobaptists- we agree on the essence of the gospel, but the difference on this issue makes it difficult to carry out the task of teaching the whole counsel of God and “do church” together. Things get complicated, because similarities and differences are not all weighed out equally.
In short, having someone like Mohler recognized as a friend (like a platform level fellowship) is different than the level of a formal partnership. As Nettleton said, you limit your message or limit your fellowship. Paul Scharf, as I would understand it, is making the case that a message was limited for the sake of fellowship at a level it shouldn’t have been. I would agree, even as I admire Mohler on many things, and value much of what he produces.

As to Bob Hayton’s question regarding dispensationalism, I recall a few GARBC dominated ordination councils where votes were cast against recommending ordination because the candidate wasn’t dispensational enough. The fact is, to many Baptists, dispensationalism is a fundamental.

There may be some few individuals who think dispensationalism is a trait of fundamentalism, but it would probably be a fair few. Ron, Dispensationalism is supposed to be a major trait of GARBC, but that doesn’t mean that we believe it is a fundamentalist trait, or even a Baptist distinctive. But that begs the question a lot of this whole A B C business would be more easily rectified if individuals, especially in the so called B-C range understood separation more fully. In today’s world it seems that most individuals I have spoken with see two options, fellowship or separation. Then they give so called type A’s flack when they chose not to fellowship with a group of individuals who may be good on all the fundamentals of the faith and even are separatists themselves type Bish and C categories.

The definition of a fundamentalist is someone who ACTIVELY separates from those who do not believe in the fundamentals of the faith as well as those who choose not to separate (Historically these two groups of people are called liberals). This separation is active. It means that these individuals are thought of as contrary to gospel or compromising of the gospel.

A Fundamental of the Faith without spending to much time here are the doctrines and beliefs essential to being a biblical Christian. Deity of Christ, Virgin birth of Christ, so on and so forth.
Any Christian who ACTIVELY separates from individuals for more then that are at the very least bordering on legalism. That is they are treating Believers as liberals or compromisers contrary to the Gospel.
But there is a third (and possibly fourth) option that is not fellowship or separation.

First let us look at fellowship. Fellowship is also ACTIVE. It is actively working together to further common ideals and teachings. This active fellowship is what individuals build associations around. Its the purpose of associations in the first place. We build associations to say who is good and who is bad, but to actively share resources and ideas because we understood (before to long after the exodus from the NBC) that even though we as churches needed to be independent, none of us could do it alone.
But is there area in between. Every church has the responsibility to teach their flock the WHOLE counsel of God. Every church (or parachurch organization) has a limited number of resources (money, people, etc.) and a church being a good steward of their resources should limit the sharing of their resources to other churches and organizations that best fit their organization. This means that their will be many churches and organizations that every group should passively choose not to work with. In other words a Dispensational Baptist church with a conservative worship style may chose to only fellowship with churches that are like them. When a church or organization begins to fellowship much further outside their circles they begin to be forced to further and further limit their message. They begin to use their resources in a less effective way.
A prime example of this would be the controversy around the FBBC and Saylorville church falling out. Many feel that Faith was wrong in separating from Saylorville. But no one at Faith was or is actively separating from the church at Saylorville. No one is calling them liberals or saying that they are compromisers. Faith is choosing to use their stewardship resources of the education of their students in churches that better fit their belief and mission as an institution.

Sure enough a close active fellowship with an evangelical church who believes the fundamentals and even separates from liberals and compromisers would be great and even if all you agreed upon is the gospel you could pool resources and effectively share the gospel. But would not both of those two individuals churches or be more effective if they shared their resources with those who shared more closely in their doctrines and polity? They would be just as effective in spreading the gospel, but also be able to further use their resources more effectively in other areas they agree upon.

Every church (or parachurch organization) has a limited number of resources (money, people, etc.) and a church being a good steward of their resources should limit the sharing of their resources to other churches and organizations that best fit their organization. This means that their will be many churches and organizations that every group should passively choose not to work with. In other words a Dispensational Baptist church with a conservative worship style may chose to only fellowship with churches that are like them. When a church or organization begins to fellowship much further outside their circles they begin to be forced to further and further limit their message. They begin to use their resources in a less effective way.

Nick,

You are failing to note that separation is not “all or nothing.” A “Dispensational Baptist church with a conservative worship style” might be in an organized fellowship with like minded churches, but would still have room to do something like support a Bible society like the Gideons, or use materials or a speaker who is a covenant paedo-baptist (say, Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart or Paul S. Jones from 10th Presbyterian speaking on issues related to worship). For years, Faith BBC affirmed a relationship with the American Council of Christian Churches (perhaps they still do), which included Methodists, Presbyterians, Bible Churches and others who, though not Baptist or dispensational, affirmed separatist, Fundamentalist principles.

Your last two posts are right on - you said it better than I did!

[Greg Linscott]

Every church (or parachurch organization) has a limited number of resources (money, people, etc.) and a church being a good steward of their resources should limit the sharing of their resources to other churches and organizations that best fit their organization. This means that their will be many churches and organizations that every group should passively choose not to work with. In other words a Dispensational Baptist church with a conservative worship style may chose to only fellowship with churches that are like them. When a church or organization begins to fellowship much further outside their circles they begin to be forced to further and further limit their message. They begin to use their resources in a less effective way.

Nick,

You are failing to note that separation is not “all or nothing.” A “Dispensational Baptist church with a conservative worship style” might be in an organized fellowship with like minded churches, but would still have room to do something like support a Bible society like the Gideons, or use materials or a speaker who is a covenant paedo-baptist (say, Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart or Paul S. Jones from 10th Presbyterian speaking on issues related to worship). For years, Faith BBC affirmed a relationship with the American Council of Christian Churches (perhaps they still do), which included Methodists, Presbyterians, Bible Churches and others who, though not Baptist or dispensational, affirmed separatist, Fundamentalist principles.

I don’t quite see that type of thing as fellowship. For instance AiG curriculum is wonderful to teach creation to children, but using the curriculum does not place one into fellowship with the organization. Neither would be the use of speakers or material from outside your sphere of fellowship. In my understanding of classic militant fundamentalism as it has been taught in my classes at Faith is an ACTIVE Fellowship between believers of like convictions vs. an ACTIVE separation from Liberals and Compromisers. Those things are what they are by definition. Everything in between fellowship and separation is as I stated above, different. Things such as using materials from other spheres of fellowship outside your own, etc., etc. when those things are helpful for your church/fellowship to fulfill its responsibilities is arguably right or wrong based on each individual circumstances and based off of many of those things is how we decide who we place in our ACTIVE spheres of fellowship.
My primary point is all of those issues are by definition separate from the doctrine of separation that is key to classic militant fundamentalism, and the so called Bish and C categories that say otherwise are unfair to those thrown in the “A” category and they are often hypocritical due to the fact that everyone makes these decisions whether they know it or not. They just get mad at the “A” guys when they don’t get to be included in their active fellowship.

You don’t put books and speakers in the “fellowship” category. Okay… but a major issue in the application of separation for the last several decades has been over platform separation (exhibit “A” being Billy Graham). Whether you choose to call it that or not, a speaker who has come in to help a church with its “responsibility to teach their flock the WHOLE counsel of God” has established some level of fellowship and cooperation. Now, that fellowship may (and should) limit the opportunity to present the area on which the church and speaker disagree (example: Paul Jones doesn’t get asked to speak on worship and decide instead to present a defense for paedobaptism and Presbyterian polity)- and if he doesn’t, the fellowship will then be limited (he won’t speak there again).

I don’t know precisely what you’re getting there in the classroom at Faith, but I find it difficult to believe, based on what I was taught while there, that separation is as binary and “all or nothing” as you are making it out to be. Example: you have many “dispensational Baptist churches with a conservative worship style” in the area surrounding Ankeny- some of whom maintain fellowship in the IARBC and GARBC. However, not all of them would neatly fit into the descriptor of “conservative worship style”- not even in Iowa, much less church in the rest of the GARBC. Those differences do not present obstacles to every kind of fellowship- you can cooperate on funding a camp, a Bible college and seminary, endorse chaplains, maintain a printing and literature ministry, etc. It might limit your desire and ability to support an event at camp which that church was in charge of, or to hold joint meetings with. It may or may not limit your ability to consider a missionary sent from their church for support.

The point is, that practically speaking, decisions on the application of separation depend on the importance of the issue, the nature of the fellowship and cooperation, but also things like geographical considerations, availability of time and resources, and so on. I get calls all the time from missionaries whose intentions are commendable, and whose sending churches are like-minded, but our church is unable to enter into formal fellowship with because we don’t have the resources to support them.

Separation isn’t just over essential points of the gospel. Whatever language you want to assign it, there was a form of separation that took place with Faith and Saylorville. When you have a gospel-preaching Baptist and E-Free church in the same locale, some kind of separation led to the establishment of separate churches. It may not be at the same level as why there are also a Roman Catholic church and a Kingdom Hall in the same town, but there are differences that led to the separate-ness.

I am a very literal person. I take the definition of separation as it is. It is dealing with the fundamentals of the Faith by definition. That is at least what every textbook and lecture says it is. Therefore I have limited it to that definition. Anything outside of that is something other than the doctrine known to fundamentalists as separation. I am personally unhappy with the GARBC to a certain extent in the large variety of churches that are a part of its fellowship. Not that I necessarily have anything wrong with the churches less like mine, but in my opinion the large variety makes the association almost pointless. In the Iowa chapter we all help fund a camp that has to deal with differing styles of worship and we play competitive softball together. Beyond that not much. I have been told of the Glory days of the GARBC back before it dealt with some of the more contemporary movements of an association that worked together on many things throughout the associations. This such as statewide evangelistic events and other pooling together of resources. Yet once churches felt that it was to difficult to do things with churches in the association due to the increasing number of differences all that stopped. My view of Active fellowship is that it should be done with churches that agree very closely with each other.
Although I understand what your saying about some level of fellowship happening when one reaches outside the sphere of one’s association (or even denomination) I think there is a major difference between the type of fellowship that should be within an association and the psuedo fellowship that happens outside of that association. Enough so that a definite distinction should be made. If you don’t like my personal use of saving the word fellowship for that highest level of fellowship fine… but a a threefold distinction that I believe to be biblical still needs to be made. If we follow the classic definition of separation which is basically dealing with liberals and Christians that associate with liberals, we should make a clear distinction between that and for example the idea that Faith chooses to no longer work with Saylorville. If we are to follow the idea and definition behind separation given to us (at least in every text book and lecture I’ve been given) by historical fundamentalism, then by no means can we apply the term separation to that situation.
Again my main point is This relationship is not fellowship and it is not separation. And it just makes no sense to try to say that one can have a partial fellowship with a partial separation. Unless we supply a third category there is no room for anything in between we must categorize it as either fellowship or separation. My point is to say there needs to be a third inbetween category. During the height of the FBBC/Saylorville issue most of the critics of Faith seemed to get the idea that Faith was practicing what they thought was biblical separation from saylorville. The critics seem to get the idea that Faith was treating saylorville basically in the same way they would treat a church that denied deity of Christ. With this twofold distinction being a gradient between fellowship and separation we get nothing but confusion. One can chose not to fellowship with someone but not be practicing separation. Someone can chose to work with someone without practicing associational level fellowship.
I’m sorry if I’m not being incredibly clear. I will chalk it up to my relatively minor amount of experience and my young age. But am I at least making some idea of sense?

Nick,

So should the more conservative and the more contemporary churches in the GARBC do a Paul and Barnabas Split? (I hope not)

My sending church, which is GARBC (Berean Baptist Church of Grand Rapids), is one of the hundreds of churches from the states of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana that I suspect you are probably more unhappy with in the GARBC. Berean, from its inception going all the way to 1940’s has associated with conservative evangelicals as well as fundamentalists. It has had missionaries serving and even leading in mission agencies such as SIM, TEAM, Latin American Mission, SEND, Greater Europe Mission, as well as typical GARBC past partnering agencies such as ABWE, CBM, and BMM. From the 1940’s until now it has been on the contemporary end of what has gone on in the GARBC. And It still encourages students to attend Cornerstone, Cedarville, and Moody, yet really has no interest in encouraging students to attend Faith because of the many cultural differences that exist, although they are happy to hear what God is doing in Ankeny. Berean assisted in the church plant (New City Church) in which I am one of the elders. Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (IFCA) is the mother church of New City. Yet New City has chosen to associate itself with the Gospel Coalition and finds its closest identity with other conservative evangelical churches (most of which are inner-city and multi-ethnic like ours) as well as Calvary Church and Berean. Personally, I have enjoyed the fellowship with the diversity of viewpoints in the Michigan GARBC. I attend a local pastor’s get together in Grand Rapids called Break Point. I also often attend and sometimes teach at the local GARBC ministry conference that draws around 1000 people from all over the state of Michigan. It is not pointless. It truly is iron sharpening iron. Just like here on the Sharper Iron forum, I have enjoyed, I have learned to appreciate, and I have learned from those in the GARBC who that are more conservative in their ministry philosophy than myself.