"Does Charles Spurgeon represent 'Cultural Fundamentalism?'”

8730 reads

There are 82 Comments

ADThompson's picture

I tried to follow along but at some point there was a leap that lost me. Why does cultural fundamentalism equal personal separation? Couldn't someone abide by the demands of cultural fundamentalism and yet fail to practice personal, Biblical separation? Could someone legitimately pursue personal, Biblical separation outside the specific, traditional applications of North American cultural fundamentalism?

Steve Davis's picture

ADThompson wrote:

I tried to follow along but at some point there was a leap that lost me. Why does cultural fundamentalism equal personal separation? Couldn't someone abide by the demands of cultural fundamentalism and yet fail to practice personal, Biblical separation? Could someone legitimately pursue personal, Biblical separation outside the specific, traditional applications of North American cultural fundamentalism?

Get used to leaps as well as twists and turns. Chuck's right about one thing. It is "personal" separation. but personal separation often means individual ideas of what the consecrated life looks like. And when the application is different, then others are considered less separated.

You would think that Christians who differ on the application are not concerned about holiness because of their understanding of dress, music, associations. etc. Worse they are accused of attacking personal separation and by that are not "promoting true biblical faith." And if you disagree with their idea of personal separation and its relationship to historic fundamentalism then you are not interacting with biblical instruction and even "demonstrate an appalling ignorance of and perhaps even cavalier arrogance toward true biblical Christianity before the birth of fundamentalism..."

I don't know of anyone who "belittle[s] personal separation by attacking 'cultural fundamentalism...'" But that doesn't matter because then we are told that "to belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture." Again who's doing this? These perceived attacks on "personal" separation cannot be construed as attacks on biblical separation. They are disagreements about emphases that go beyond Scripture as being normative for the Christian life. Chuck seems to know who is guilty and is sure about these "revisionists who demonstrate an appalling ignorance of and perhaps even cavalier arrogance ..."

Chuck is also partly right about the polarization. But I hope he wouldn't suggest that those who disagree don't love the Lord or His Word. If he's interested in "peace" he has a strange way of going about it. If he's interested in further diminishing the influence of his branch of Fundamentalism, then he's doing a fine job.

Steve Davis

Aaron Blumer's picture

I'm not sure Chuck has said it all that well, but maybe he has. I need to read the post more thoroughly, but surely it's not hard to see the connection between Spurgeon's renouncing of worldly living and what many today are calling "cultural fundamentalism."

Maybe I can help a bit...

  • The concept of holiness in Scripture is rooted in the concept of separation (the words translated holy, consecrated, etc. bear this out as well as the contexts where they appear)
  • We are all called to be personally holy and live holy lifestyles  (1Pet.1:16, 2Cor. 7:1, many more)
  • Ergo, we are all called to personal separation and personal separation is synonymous with holy living.

Add in a couple of other well-known (and surely beyond dispute) prinicples:

  • Cultures are usually deeply infected with allegiance to the temporary (at best) and the decadent and demonic (at worst).(1John 2:15-16 and 2:17)
  • We are called to not conform to these allegiances and practices (Rom. 12:2, Gal.4:8-9)

Given these principles, isn't it pretty obvious that being a Christian has profound cultural implications and these implications include a mandate to consciously (and selectively) not conform to much of what is common in our culture?  ... and that this is part of our call to personal separation (i.e., holiness)?

I don't see where the mystery is.

Tim Terpstra's picture

Very few will argue personal holiness doesn't matter, the question is in areas of subjectivity who gets to decide, and how do we interact with those with whom we disagree.  This conversation rarely rises when talking about other local churches, but due to the history of Bible colleges in fundamentalism, undue influence and attention is often given to their choices in how they nuance holiness and institutional control.  

Aaron Blumer's picture

Yes, application is the thorny part. But what I'm seeing a whole lot of the last few years is an abandoning of principles--at least verbally. It often takes the form of broad dismissal of the whole idea that we are called to be counter-cultural. So the baby goes out with the bathwater in the name of "I'm not a cultural fundamentalist." But the logic is often along the lines of selective appeal to biblical evidence: talk about Pharisees, "legalism," etc., as though the other passages (which exist it great abundance) calling us to disciplined and discerning counter-culturalism aren't there.

But they are there and aren't going away.

So I'm all for acknowledging the difficulties of application and granting one another space for respectful disagreement. But if we denigrate the whole practice of establishing firm, clear cultural boundaries and articulating them with passion--that's really the most intolerant position of them all. 

ADThompson's picture

I do not object to associating personal separation with a call to holy living--far from it! However, our movement developed a culture and as you well stated--"Cultures are usually deeply infected with allegiance to the temporary".

I remain unconvinced that following these cultural norms (based on the past application of principles) determines whether or not we practice personal separation.

Jay's picture

Well, I made the same points that Steve Davis did yesterday and was told that I misunderstood Phelps' point.  Although I will give Don credit for pointing out that I was wrong to say that I'm labeled as 'subversive'.  Now those other labels that Phelps used, though...

I find it highly ironic and downright funny that myself, Roger Carlson, ADThompson, Shaynus, and Steve would all misunderstand in the same exact way on reading the same article.  Well, I would if this wasn't a serious issue.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Don Johnson's picture

If  you read someone with prejudice (your own point of view), you will read into what you think he is saying. That's why you made your error yesterday. Of the guys you name, I know of reasons for three out of the four to have been able to predict the reactions.

We all do it, hopefully we can minimize the effects and read objectively, but it is very difficult, especially in this emotion-laden age.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Steve Davis's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

Of the guys you name, I know of reasons for three out of the four to have been able to predict the reactions.

Prediction? And here I thought you didn't hold to the gifts Smile

ADThompson's picture

Don, I value your recognition that we all struggle with personal prejudice and we should strive to minimize its effects on our interaction--as hard as that may be. I am very biased at times.

I would only mention that confidently predicting the response of others could be construed as prejudice.

Greg Linscott's picture

Link to previous thread comment

 

To summarize, I think Phelps, with his citation of Spurgeon, actually leaves the door open for changes in how personal separation gets applied. In the citation, Spurgeon objects to churches utilizing, among other things, drama and leisure games of chance in their methodology. As I noted in the earlier entry, it is quite evident that Chuck's ministries do not draw the line where Spurgeon would have in his day, since his churches have incorporated both methods into their practice.

I am not, by the way, condemning Chuck or his churches for doing so. I am simply observing that things have changed, and that most would not presume that Chuck or his churches have stopped caring about personal separation from worldliness.

I do not agree with or condone some of the specific practices that I imagine prompted Chuck's article, either. At the same time, as Don observed that the stage and playhouse may have had a different connotation in Spurgeon's day than it would today, some are perhaps reasoning that the specific practices of music, for example, do not carry the same connotation as they did, say, in 1974 as they might today in 2013. To say it another way, there are those today who still would agree with Spurgeon that drama has no place in the church. I don't think, though, that the universal conclusion Bauder would reach is that those who practice drama simply aren't concerned with personal separation. 

As much as Chuck may want to reduce it to personal separation, there is a sense that "cultural fundamentalism" is still something that is changing. Music may or may not be part of the discussion, but there are things that Fundamentalists have slowly changed their application of personal separation on. I brought up the example of women wearing pants- something that was widely not permitted in many Fundamentalist institutions as recently as a decade ago (and is still forbidden in some settings). There are many who have changed, though, on this and other appearance matters (facial hair on men, wearing blue jeans...).   These things were condemned by some as worldly in the course of my lifetime, and those who would dare to adopt some of these things were condemned by others as being unwilling to practice personal separation.

It seems to me, that rather than reduce it to a matter of condemning those who deviate from the practice one holds to as those who fail to practice personal separation at best only serves to rally those who already agree with you. There is little to no exhortation, no explanation of why, say, it's okay to use drama but not contemporary music styles, or why it's acceptable to have women wear "slacks" today, but in 1984 it was "worldly."

In other words, if Chuck and the FBF thinks this is a principle worth upholding, this article  is a very poor way of persuading sound reasoning and application. The conclusion one could easily draw here is "we alone will establish what is worldly and what is not."

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jim's picture

Is this a true statement?

Generally the standards (when it comes to the well-know taboos) of self-identified fundamentalists are "tighter" (not necessarily better) than those who are not?

Examples:

  • Most (guessing the vast majority of) self-identified fundamentalists are total-abstainers
  • Most selfself-identified fundamentalists-identified fundamentalists do not attend movies
  • Most self-identified fundamentalists do not play cards
  • Most self-identified fundamentalists do not dance

Is this what is known as cultural fundamentalism?

 I further observe:

  • Self-identified fundamentalists who are 2nd generation +, or attended CDS, or graduated from a fundamentalist college (BJU, Pills, etc) basically live the taboos (they view the above as improper or unacceptable) without questioning or complaining.
  • Fundamentalists who are not 2nd generation, did not attend CDS, did not attend Bible college really don't buy into the taboos.

Examples: I'm a 1st generation Christian (actually not precisely because I am a descendant of Resolved White. But there has been a giant gap between that generation and mine.) I went to public school, public university (University of Cincinnati), was saved in college.

  • I occasionally play cards (mainly hearts)
  • I occasionally go to a movie theater
  • I do not believe the Bible teaches total-abstinence (I agree with Spurgeon on this)

 

 

Jay's picture

"Is this what is known as cultural fundamentalism?"

When I say 'cultural fundamentalist' (and I think I'm the one who popularized it here at the site), I am specifically talking about fundamentalists that draw lines of demarcation over cultural issues (card playing, movies, dress standards, music standards, etc).  They can do it in a negative way (as Phelps does in his article) by describing norms that are contrary to what they see in Scripture, or they can do it in a positive way, as someone like Scott Aniol might.  These fundamentalists seem changes in praxis as threats to the gospel (due to a lack of 'separation'), and have deliberately structured their lives around specific and culturally agreed upon, norms.

In short, their view of separation results in a very explicit and selected set of norms for a people group - a culture.  That is what characterizes their lives and praxis.  It's Amish culture with cars and electricity (and I don't mean that pejoratively).

I'm not saying it's wrong to have culture.  NO people group is devoid of culture.  What I am saying is that this particular strain of fundamentalism can and should be characterized by their particular form of culture.  My culture looks different because I don't handle texts on separation the same way they do, and I don't agree with them that separation is and should be the first step in defining how I relate to other believers.

I mentioned this in a different thread, so let me repost that section here:

I'd also like to interact with something that Phelps said.  I was curious, so I looked up culture in Dictionary.com.  Here's what it lists:

cul·ture

[kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, cul·tured, cul·tur·ing.

noun

1.  The quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.

2.  That which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.

3.  a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.

4.  development or improvement of the mind by education or training.

5.  the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.

Now, here's what Phelps said that I disagree with:

To belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration.  It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it never has beenIt’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.

And what he views as a 'consecrated life of personal separation' is exactly what I call it - a culture that he chooses to enmesh himself in because he feels that it is 'a life of personal separation'.  Phelps errs when he argues that is he is not 'cultural'.  Culture isn't just what tens of thousands of people do.  It's a style of living adopted by any group of people (as Dictionary.com notes, and as I correctly suspected).  So it is disingenous to argue that 'separation does not equal culture' and then turn around and argue that 'lack of separation is a result of ungodly culture'.  Just say that my culture is more godly than your culture, which seems to be Aniol's argument.

If you're going to argue about culture, then at least realize that you do have one, whether you define it as 'a consecrated life of personal separation' or a 'culture', or as something else. 

Does that make sense, Jim?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Charlie's picture

Jim wrote:

Is this a true statement?

Generally the standards (when it comes to the well-know taboos) of self-identified fundamentalists are "tighter" (not necessarily better) than those who are not?

Examples:

  • Most (guessing the vast majority of) self-identified fundamentalists are total-abstainers
  • Most selfself-identified fundamentalists-identified fundamentalists do not attend movies
  • Most self-identified fundamentalists do not play cards
  • Most self-identified fundamentalists do not dance

Is this what is known as cultural fundamentalism?

 I further observe:

  • Self-identified fundamentalists who are 2nd generation +, or attended CDS, or graduated from a fundamentalist college (BJU, Pills, etc) basically live the taboos (they view the above as improper or unacceptable) without questioning or complaining.
  • Fundamentalists who are not 2nd generation, did not attend CDS, did not attend Bible college really don't buy into the taboos.

Examples: I'm a 1st generation Christian (actually not precisely because I am a descendant of Resolved White. But there has been a giant gap between that generation and mine.) I went to public school, public university (University of Cincinnati), was saved in college.

  • I occasionally play cards (mainly hearts)
  • I occasionally go to a movie theater
  • I do not believe the Bible teaches total-abstinence (I agree with Spurgeon on this)

Jim, I think it is somewhat generational, but not that way. I don't know what CDS means, but ton Bible colleges, it depends more on which institution. At least at BJU in 2004-2011, the period in which I lived in Greenville, most of the students did not agree with the taboos and frankly, didn't keep to the same standard of rules when at home or when they wouldn't be caught. Most people put on a good show. Some, after graduating, openly dissented. I was involved in two large BJU churches for a while, and almost all the guys my age listened to CCM and/or secular music, drank on occasion, and were not super tight on entertainment media. Almost all the women wore pants to church events other than Sunday worship, and almost none of them wore skirts/dresses all the time.

However, I had friends at West Coast, Pensacola, Crown, and Ambassador. All of these groups evidenced some difference between the official standard and their private lifestyles, the PCC crowd more so than the others. With PCC, I think the issue is that the education is so cheap, it attracts people who are not really on board with the school's agenda. 

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Greg Linscott's picture

CDS= Christian Day School

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jay's picture

Here is a short listing of cultural norms that have been defended vehemently (which is the point Greg is making) under the rubric of 'separation':

* King James Version (vs. other versions)

* Christian Day School / Christian College

* Dress Standards

* Music Standards

* Drama Teams

* Door-knocking or 'soul-winning'

If they sound familiar - they should.  They're arguably the biggest stressors or hot points of Fundamentalism on the Web.  I think that's why Phil Johnson wrote this (in the Dead Right pdf):

In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries.

Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die. And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel. 

They fought and argued over controversies because they had stopped arguing and fighting for the gospel and were instead arguing over cultural norms that they defined and decided on even though they didn't say that was what they were doing.  It was always about the norms to one extent or another.  When those norms were challenged, the immediate response was to 'separate' (or to throw the questioner out so they didn't create problems).

That's why SI and individual bloggers generally get the pushback they do - because the culture of the cultural fundamentalist is threatened and they can't just tell people to sit down and ignore the man behind the curtain like they could in the past.   It's also why the Sweatt incident from 2009 (or whenever it was) was so fascinating and out of the ordinary...the cultural fundamentalists were finally called on the carpet by a bunch of fundamentalists that stood up to them and said "No, this is wrong".  If you don't believe me, start with post #8 or #9 on that thread I just linked to.  Mike Durning used exactly the right word in post #10 - they rebelled.  And we should have.

It's also why movements like T4G are so appealing - people are finally realizing that the emphasis needs to be corrected, and they're moving back to it.  I think a lot of those movements are man-oriented, but I also think that we'll see a lot of men staying there after guys like MacArthur and Dever (and I pick those two in particular) will be in Glory.  Other man-centered movements like Driscoll or Mahaney won't last as long (if you can even say that they last now).

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Don Johnson's picture

the KJO movement is just a "cultural norm"?

Man, and I thought we had trouble defining fundamentalist. If you want to simply dismiss KJO-ism as a cultural norm, we're doomed to talk past each other.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Jay's picture

If you make the use of the KJV a separation issue - as in, I will not cooperate with someone who uses a different version because of that - then yes, it is a cultural issue.

I'm not talking about double-inspiration guys or something like that.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bob Hayton's picture

Jay,

Per your definition of cultural fundamentalist. You are saying some define their group (the who's in and out line) around a stance on cultural issues.  Dresses not pants, no beat in music, or whatever.  Their definitions might differ within this group (some are okay with pants, some are okay with a different style of music i.e, southern Gospel), but it is about these matters of lifestyle and practice.

I think I agree with you.  Others opt for fundamentalism around doctrine more. In other words, if someone's practice is different but they agree on the core, fudnamental doctrines, this group would be less hesitant to hobnob with them.

Is that what you're saying. Or to ask it another way, what other kinds of fundamentalists are there than cultural fundamentalists? They rally around lifestyle standards and make it a subculture. What do non-cultural fundamentalists, the others (historic or mainstream or what have you) rally around?

Chuck has a point that all Christians care about lifestyle applications.  But I'm with Greg L. above that there is drift and change over time that isn't necessarily bad, it is about applying the same principles of God's Word in a cultural moment in time and space that is much different than it as in Spurgeon's day.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Greg Linscott's picture

Don,

I can't speak for Jay- he and I would differ on applications for music, for one. At the same time, the KJVO movement, though it has some articulate people who approach the matter theologically (Kent Brandenburg is one example that comes to mind), much of the momentum they have been able to generate comes from a grasp of established tradition and culture that some people just don't want to let go of. It may not be only a cultural norm, but that does factor in. Music may not just be a matter of cultural norms, but it does factor in (try criticizing "In The Garden" from the pulpit in a Fundamentalist congregation sometime and see what happens...).

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Greg Linscott's picture

But I'm with Greg L. above that there is drift and change over time that isn't necessarily bad, it is about applying the same principles of God's Word in a cultural moment in time and space that is much different than it as in Spurgeon's day.

Bob,

I  just want to say that some of the drift and change over time just might be bad, too. I will allow that Chuck perhaps has a point here- I am saying that if he does have a point, he hasn't really supported it, especially by citing Spurgeon. If he is going to personally distinguish himself from say, music styles in the understanding that they are worldly, while at the same time embracing drama and games that Spurgeon would have recognized as worldly, it seems to me that is at best inconsistent. There is no effort to define or provide reasoning why one behavior is unacceptable, while the other is "in bounds" for Christians today.

I would say too, that it seems to me there is room to extend  brothers in Christ room for different applications, even if your disagreement on application leads to limited fellowship.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Don Johnson's picture

I don't have time to get into this just now, will probably have to leave it until late tonight. But I want to discuss this idea of KJO as a cultural norm, and parse a few more things on Jay's list as well. Probably needs a thread of its own. More later

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

DavidO's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:
much of the momentum [fundamentalist cultural taboos/their advocates] . . . generate comes from a grasp of established tradition and culture that some people just don't want to let go of. It may not be only a cultural norm, but that does factor in.

This.

I even think some norms in particular are so dearly held that they are read back into passages which are then presented as proof of the norm.  I realize I myself could be vulnerable to this very criticism on some issues, but I think its an important and legitimate point well put by Greg. 

Jay's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:

Jay,

Per your definition of cultural fundamentalist. You are saying some define their group (the who's in and out line) around a stance on cultural issues.  Dresses not pants, no beat in music, or whatever.  Their definitions might differ within this group (some are okay with pants, some are okay with a different style of music i.e, southern Gospel), but it is about these matters of lifestyle and practice.

I think I agree with you.  Others opt for fundamentalism around doctrine more. In other words, if someone's practice is different but they agree on the core, fundamental doctrines, this group would be less hesitant to hobnob with them.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes...because the cultures don't match.  This is why I would have no problems visiting Greg or Don's people at my church or camp, but Don or Greg would probably have a bigger problem with going to my church.  I do have a problem with Greg's New England Patriots, though Smile

I'm using them as quick examples because they're in the thread.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

fljones3's picture

ADThompson wrote:

I do not object to associating personal separation with a call to holy living--far from it! However, our movement developed a culture and as you well stated--"Cultures are usually deeply infected with allegiance to the temporary".

I remain unconvinced that following these cultural norms (based on the past application of principles) determines whether or not we practice personal separation.

 

Could one argue that all expressions of religion have "cultural norms" associated with it? Even if you do not hold to any cultural norms that becomes a type of culture. I think one could argue for a NT culture.

Marriage is temporary yet I don't think any true believer would desire to jettison that aspect of culture.

 

 

Frank Jones, Pastor

www.faithmemorialbaptist.org

Greg Linscott's picture

This is why I would have no problems visiting Greg or Don's people at my church or camp, but Don or Greg would probably have a bigger problem with going to my church.

I would have no problem with visiting Jay's church in some settings- say, a conference setting, for example. I don't know much more.

I do have a problem with Greg's New England Patriots, though...

Ever since 2007, anyway... Smile

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

ADThompson's picture

I would think that marriage--as a divine institution--transcends culture. Perhaps you could suggest a different example that would help me to understand your perspective.

As for a NT culture, I suppose that there were probably at least two cultures in the NT church--the Jewish background culture and the Gentile background culture. They had trouble reconciling their differences at times.

dgszweda's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:

 

As much as Chuck may want to reduce it to personal separation, there is a sense that "cultural fundamentalism" is still something that is changing. Music may or may not be part of the discussion, but there are things that Fundamentalists have slowly changed their application of personal separation on.

To me this seems to be the crux of the issue.  We hold to the truths in Scripture which are binding and don't falter or change as times change or culture changes.  Yet our application of this and culture itself does change.  What was once thought as evil "Woman's pants", is now not an issue.  Is it because Scripture changed?  No.  It is because culture changed and our application of the truths against today's culture has changed.  This to me is what is rubbing everyone.  You have some people in this generation and every generation who feel our application shouldn't change regardless of culture changes and you have another group that is changing.  The group that hold's fast is calling the other group compromisers and you have the group that is moving that claims the other group is holding fast to items that are no longer relevant.  The people who say we shouldn't change our music to worldly standards are also the same group that now doesn't require their wives to wear hats in church, or require their wives to wear full arm length gloves, both of which were compromises to the culture not too long ago.  Music and other so called separation issues will change over time.  Where they fall out only time will show.  But culture will change and the fact that we change with the culture shouldn't always be viewed as a bad thing.  Standing still isn't allows the best thing either.

 

Bob Hayton's picture

@Greg - understood. Thanks.

@Jay - I posted my comment just after you had given one that better explained your statement. I think I'm following. Obviously not everyone will be cool with explaining things this way -and technically there are some areas of cultural application that the other group would see as closely enough tied to doctrine as to be an issue. But I think you're generally correct.

Perhaps this blends into leadership style and institutional MO as well. When it is mainly about praxis and specific cultural stances, the motive for being defensive and the zeal to keep everyone in the fold is greater. When it is mainly about doctrine there is less of a territorial mentality and more agreement to disagree while still making much of the gospel together.

Okay, I'm sure I lost a bunch of people with this. But I think there may be a connection here.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Pages