FBFI

Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-03 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June issue of FrontLine magazine.

Is There A Difference?

Introduction

Pastor Robert Corso is facing a hard decision. Another Bible-believing pastor in his town has asked him to participate in a joint youth outreach emphasis. The difficulty is that Pastor Corso has some significant differences with the other church in terms of ministry philosophy and the practice of youth ministry. Although he does not wish to throw stones, he does not feel comfortable participating in the event. Pastor Corso is sure that some of his church members believe that he should publicly separate from the other church. Other members would see nothing wrong with participating, given that the gospel is more important than a church’s “parochial interests.”

Although there are times when a church must unequivocally separate itself from individuals and ministries, many times a pastor is faced with a situation like the one above. He does not believe that he has clear enough Scriptural warrant to publicly declare another ministry or minister to be “in sin,” but he does not think it prudent to involve himself too closely with that ministry or a particular project. The question is whether he has the leeway to limit his participation without officially separating from the other ministry. Are there such things as prudential limits on association that are different in nature from Biblical separation?

See “Note to the Readers.”

Regarding Limited Participation

Whereas the Scripture admonishes believers generally to maintain fellowship with one another in the love of Christ and in the bond of peace,

Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-02 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June 2009 issue of FrontLine magazine.

One criticism leveled against Fundamentalists is their refusal to engage the culture. Sociologist Alan Wolfe writes, “When believers refuse to engage the culture, their opponents dismiss them as fanatics, frustrated people rendered insecure by the dilemmas and opportunities of modernity.” ¹ Implicit in this complaint is resentment toward Fundamentalists for being unsociable: they are generally an intolerant people who do not mix well with their culture. Interestingly, this same complaint was directed against first-century believers by Roman hedonists.

It is true that historically Fundamentalists have refused to tolerate, let alone participate in behavior that exalts sensual pleasure and denigrates Christian values. The criticism is perennial, and understandably so, since sincere Christians have taken seriously the Biblical admonition to love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. They love and are loved by God, whose values are theirs and whose commands they seek to obey. And those living for the world have hated them for it.

See “Note to the Readers.”

Regarding Fundamentalism and Culture

Whereas true believers have always functioned actively within the culture in which they find themselves,

And whereas Jesus Christ clearly indicated the true believers must live in the world but not of it,

Editor’s Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-01.

The word evangel means gospel. Therefore, to be evangelical is to be defined by the gospel. At minimum, those who claim to be Evangelicals should have a very clear idea of what the gospel is.

Within today’s Evangelicalism, however, the content of the gospel is the subject of significant disagreement. Many contemporary Evangelicals are attempting to create an understanding of the gospel that is much more inclusive than the message of personal salvation. While these Evangelicals do not always deny a personal gospel (and some are fervently committed to it), they think that the gospel must also deal with other issues, including problems of a psychological, social, and environmental nature. What they proclaim is neither simply a personal gospel nor a social gospel. It is a both/and gospel.

The basic argument for the both/and gospel is that sin has done more than to disrupt our personal relationship with God. It has disrupted the inner integrity of each individual, resulting in the disintegration of emotional wholeness. It has disrupted the relationship between humans, resulting in oppression and exploitation. It has disrupted our relationship to the created order, resulting in the ruination of nature through human abuse. According to proponents of the both/and gospel, a meaningful gospel must address each of these issues directly.

Note to the Readers:

Attending the FBFI fellowship reminded me of many relationships I have been blessed with over the last several years of ministry (and things I have learned from the people I have known). I was able to connect with people from my college experience at Faith like Dave Witcher, who had a display for Baptist Church Planters. I saw Brad and Sarah Calhoun, who served as missionaries in Quebec with Baptist Mid-Missions. Brad now pastors in North Carolina, but provided a memorable service opportunity for a group from the church I served with in Iowa back in 2002. I was able to renew acquaintances with several familiar faces from the years I was in New England, including pastors Ken Endean (from Scarborough, ME) and Chuck Phelps and missionaries Jack and Jennifer Mitchell of Grace Dental Mission. Fleshing out some of the online relationships is always a delight, too. I was reminded as I saw some of these familiar faces this week how God has used people in my life whose conclusions on issues might not always mirror my own.

Several sessions now available at SermonAudio

Stephen Jones was ill, so his session was canceled. Panel discussion on conservative evangelicals live now at http://twitter.com/sifilings

Session with Dr. Minnick tonight- updates on http://twitter.com/sifilings