Some are upset that I won't accept the fundamentalist label. It is suitably derogatory for me to be a fundamentalist, and if they don't have that title to designate me, they're unhappy. The still call me a fundamentalist, because I become too hard to label without it. However, continuing to do it is lazy and untrue.
Fundamentalist is the best word, maybe the only word, most have for the most theologically conservative in doctrine and practice. To them you can't be more conservative than a fundamentalist, so I've got to be one. To review, if someone could be a fundamentalist by dictionary definition, that is, strong adherent to a standard, I could be that. I strongly adhere to the Bible and I wouldn't apologize if that's what fundamentalist meant. However, Christianity has a very specific meaning that rules me out as a fundamentalist, if we're going to be honest with the terminology.
Someone questioned recently why I attack fundamentalism. If I'm not a fundamentalist, what am I?You're left with an evangelical or new evangelical or conservative evangelical -- things not fundamentalist. So if I'm attacking fundamentalism, must I be an evangelical?
Labels themselves don't bother me, but we've got to be honest with them. They have a purpose for marking someone, helping understand who someone is. Sometimes the terms are used as a pejorative to shame the target. The media does that with conservative evangelicals.
To say I am or I'm not a fundamentalist, we've got to know what a fundamentalist is. Being a fundamentalist does have to do with the fundamentals and it is a historical position. Fundamentalism is a movement that responded to theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Fundamentalists separated from others, those deemed liberals, for not believing and teaching what they called the fundamentals. They separated only over the fundamentals, so they unified or fellowshiped merely if someone believed and taught the fundamentals. They reduced unity and fellowship to the fundamentals.
It dawned on me several years ago that I couldn't keep self-identifying as a fundamentalist, because I believe that more is required for unity and fellowship than the fundamentals. Scripture doesn't support unity on just fundamentals. If there are fundamentals, the Bible doesn't say what they are. I often say that I figured out that I can't be a fundamentalist and obey the Bible, and obeying the Bible is more important than being a non-scriptural title or even idea. I don't know that I ever truly was a fundamentalist. I didn't know what one was, but when I understood it, I decided I wasn't one.
As an example, our church separates over mode of baptism. Our church separates over ungodly worship. Our church separates over immodest dress. Our church separates over false doctrine and practice. We don't immediately cut other people off. We give people an opportunity to grow. But we don't divide the Bible into the so-called essentials and non-essentials and separate only over the essentials, whatever size of list that is growing to or shrinking to.
I give credit to fundamentalism for separating at all. That's why I most often am defending fundamentalism here. For that reason, I care about fundamentalism. Fundamentalism still teaches separation. Evangelicals do not hold ecclesiastical separation. They don't teach it. Often they repudiate ecclesiastical separation. Evangelicals are in non-stop rebellion against the doctrine of separation. They can't be right. If I was an evangelical, I would doubt my own salvation. Why? I would be in continuous disobedience to scripture. I would say that I know the Lord, but not keep His commandments, and, therefore, be a liar. Evangelicals reading -- think about that. Those who consider me a fundamentalist do so because I believe in separation. However, I separate on more than just the fundamentals.
What I have noticed about fundamentalism is that it struggles with separation. The list of fundamentals is very nebulous. Most fundamentalists have a different or varied list of fundamentals over which they will separate. Some separate over a smaller number and others over a much larger number. What they have in common is that they believe that someone should separate just over fundamentals, whatever size the list of fundamentals might be. Because fundamentalists can't agree on what the list is, there is non-stop debate and fundamentalists are rightly targeted for being political, because the size of the list often seems to correspond to fundamentalist politics. There are many ways to illustrate this.
Fundamentalism will separate over Billy Graham because of the gospel. Aspects of the gospel are fundamentals. They often will not separate over the various iterations of Jack Hyles over the gospel. They won't separate over the Hyles type of gospel, but then they will separate over those who will use the English King James translation only. I've noticed that often now fundamentalists will separate from those who they think separate too much, because those people are heretics. Explanations for why and who to separate from are regularly changing.
Fundamentalism is about separation, but not just about separation, because it is also about militancy. Fundamentalists historically are militant in their stands on doctrine and practice. Even if they won't separate over whether someone drinks alcohol or doesn't drink alcohol, since it isn't a fundamental, they will fight over alcohol drinking. They will make resolutions. They will repudiate. They will use very strong language against alcohol drinking.
Here's a tough one now for fundamentalists, which shows why it is hard to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists separated from the Southern Baptist Convention. Calvinism is growing in fundamentalism. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is Calvinist. The Convention still harbors a false gospel among many. However, it seems that fundamentalists can now fellowship with Southern Baptists and Calvinism is the glue. Calvinist fundamentalists will fellowship, again, it seems, with Southern Baptist Calvinists. Those same Calvinists have a much bigger problem with the King James Version than they do Southern Baptist Calvinists. Go figure. Perhaps, go try to figure, because you won't understand the doctrine of it.
Maybe I can't say that Calvinist fundamentalists hate the revivalist fundamentalists. Maybe hate is too strong a word. But that's what it seems like. The Calvinist fundamentalists seem to like the Southern Baptist Calvinists more than the fundamentalist revivalists. I'm laughing.
Anyway, I digress. You can't practice the Bible and be a fundamentalist. Scripture does teach ecclesiastical separation, so you can't be an evangelical and be biblical, but you can't be a fundamentalist and practice separation like the Bible teaches. The most that fundamentalists have done with me is find inconsistencies to prove that no one can be consistent, to justify their own inconsistencies. What they should do is just believe and obey what the Bible teaches. The practice of ecclesiastical separation isn't easy. Church discipline isn't easy. How long do you wait before you discipline someone out of your church? You try to be patient. It can take longer to separate from someone outside of your church. However, the only consistent position to take is to separate over every doctrine and practice of the Bible.
The Bible is perspicuous, that is, plain. The Bible is sufficient. The Bible is sufficient in everything that it teaches. You leave some out and part of the Bible isn't sufficient. To keep the doctrines and practices of the Bible, which are plain, we have to separate over all of it. We can, because we can know what it means. We should, because we need all of it. God never said to do otherwise, no matter what kind of convoluted explanation a fundamentalist might try to make.
I understand evangelicals. They believe in a universal church, so they fellowship with all believers. They don't want to separate and cause disunity in the universal, invisible body. But then they have all the doctrinal and practical garbage that flows in and through, spoiling everything. Fundamentalists, also universal church, don't want to spoil unity or doctrine, so they try to bridge the gap between the two with incessant argument.
The key here is to understand where unity is. Unity is in a church, in an assembly. You can keep doctrine and practice pure in a church. Each church fellowships with churches of like faith and practice. Each church separates from churches with a different doctrine and practice. What I just described is not fundamentalism. But it is what I am. It is biblical. Join me.
100 comments:
Hi Kent, I like the description of fundamentalism given by the following website:
http://www.baptistfires.com/html/fundamentalism.html
I came to this conclusion about 10 years ago. Most people don't even know what fundamental means. It is indeed important that we know what things mean, especially when identifying ourselves or others with these labels. I like Biblicist Baptist myself.
used on S/I here
Like Pastor Rogers, I also came to this conclusion around 10 years ago. He and I have discussed it at length before and I agree with him- if I'm going to be labeled anything, I like Biblicist Baptist.
Interestingly enough, I became an Independent Baptist 30 years ago, and my church never referred to itself as an IFB church, just independent Baptist. It wasn't until I moved south and began meeting people who had pastors from BJU that I heard fundamentalism associated with Independent Baptists. Times have changed. I never considered myself a fundamentalist, only someone who desired to live according to all of the precepts in God's Word.
Kent,
I believe I understand why you eschew the label "Fundamentalist." What I am not sure is why you don't distance yourself from the "Baptist" label with equal vigor. It seems at least as problematic as the Fundamentalist label, if not even more nebulous.
Good article. I also am not a Fundamentalist for the same reasons. I am not part of a movement. I believe and endeavor to practice the NT in a NT church. Separation is practiced from the foundation of the church as it obeys the Bible ... not on the basis of what a movement has agreed is important. This is pretty simple. This is the practice that a pastor and a church come to by preaching through the Bible and applying it. One of the most obvious examples of difference between Fundamentalists & NT Baptists is the so-called practice of "secondary separation." Fundamentalists get "secondary separation" from 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. NT Baptists understand that this passages teaches that a NT church should confront church members who are not obeying the Bible & withdraw fellowship from them if they continue to "walk disorderly". How simple can you get?
Hi everyone,
For the positive -- Steve, Tom, Ken, Gary -- I agree with all that you said and thanks.
For perhaps the negative, although I'm looking at it as positive,
Thanks Greg.
I would love to explore the point you're making. I think I am properly representing the term fundamentalist, even unlike the anonymous commenter, where the term gets redefined so someone can keep using it to identify himself. I would never have been a fundamentalist based upon the actual meaning of the term, but as I said, there is a lot for which I'm thankful. Now that I know what it means, I don't get fundamentalists. I don't how they even get their view of the world, but especially the Bible. There is probably a whole book there, but not very many who care about what would be the contents.
As far as Baptist is concerned, I would be interested in what others would say is the answer to your comment. I can truly say that I've never even thought about what you were asking or challenging. I'm glad for the challenge, but I hadn't thought of the term Baptist as meaning something different than what I am. Isn't Baptist a name that is historical too, and that it means certain distinctives that separate a true church from a false one? True churches, NT churches, have been Baptist churches -- the same thing. I'm still that. I'm still Baptist.
I never was fundamentalist. But everything that "Baptist" actually means, historically, by definition, I am. So I keep the name. Just because there are those who have abused the term, like the term "fundamentalist" has been, doesn't mean that I'm not a Baptist.
I believe there are people who call themselves Baptists, who are not Baptists. There are people who call themselves fundamentalists, who are not fundamentalists. I was one of them. I wasn't a fundamentalist, and because I didn't know what it meant, I would have called myself one. I never was. I'm not. How is that the same with Baptist? I really do welcome your answer, and others.
One more thing, Greg. Some of the comments at SI, I have to say, I don't even get. Josh P. And DLCreed. I get Jim Peet's comment. He's more in line with what you're talking about. He thinks the term isn't any good any more, because people don't know what it means. I do know what it means (so does he, but he thinks others won't). I'm not trying to out fundamentalist fundamentalists, as DLCreed wrote. That is a joke. I just want to do what the Bible says, which means not being a fundamentalist. Being one, an actual one, won't allow for obedience of scripture. That's what Ken Lengel wants men to interact with, and why he was exasperated with their comments. I appreciate his exasperation. It's like they are from a different solar system. I would like to hear them explain their positions, instead of the typical SI potshots. There are so many that do that there. Help us get as smart as DLCreed and Josh P. They should help us out by explaining the true, biblical way. Their comments mean almost nothing, except that you can tell they're ridicule, but not even good as that.
Can't answer for other's comments.
I think a major difference is that your idea of fellowship and separation are (pretty much) all or nothing. I say "pretty much" because you practically seem to realize that you have grudging affinity with self-identified Fundamentalists- at least more than you would Greek Orthodox or Pentecostals, for example.
I think the terms "Baptist" and "Fundamentalist" are similar in this way- people often define the terms to suit their purposes. Yes, "Baptist" means something historically. At the same time, that meaning is not always as consistent as we might like, even across history (I am learning that as I interact with Baptist descendants from Judson's ministry in Burma, or descendants of ethnic Swedish Baptists here in MN). "Fundamentalist" can be the same way- sometimes it can be about specific positions (like you are referencing), sometimes people employ it to describe demeanor or level of dedication/fanaticism...
I do think that it would be a useful term to describe you in some way... If nothing else, to distinguish you from mainstream Evangelicals. The problem is distinguishing you even further from self-identified Fundamentalists. I just think that your list of "Fundamentals" is much broader than most (in other words, just about everything is a "Fundamental" for you). But again, you don't have a term that distinguishes you from the kind of Baptist Jimmy Carter is (and whether he mis-identifies or not, he is widely recognized as a Baptist).
PS: We also don't always have the luxury of choosing our own labels. There are plenty of people who are going to think of and refer to you as a Fundamentalist (or worse), whether you embrace it or not.
Hi Greg,
I defend fundamentalists, because they are easier to defend, and I defend where they are scriptural. You are right that I wouldn't find much to defend of Greek Orthodox and Pentecostals, but isn't it for obvious reasons?
I'm open to being wrong about understanding Baptists. I've read quite a bit Baptist History, and I haven't yet come to the conclusion that I don't know. I can't see how that Burmese Baptist History would change that. Someone like Jimmy Carter calling himself Baptist, I really believe is an example of someone like me calling myself a fundamentalist. He's not a historic Baptist. He's progressive and would be a Baptist in the same way he's a constitutionalist. I've found that there are many fundamentalists who don't want your calling yourself one if you aren't really one. I agree with them. It's not honest.
Do you call yourself a Christian?
I get why someone calls me a fundamentalist. I understand why the media calls John MacArthur one. They don't know what they're talking about.
Based on the actual definition of a fundamentalist, the historical definition, can you obey the Bible? I don't think there is a biblical defense of fundamentalism. Bauder gives the only biblical defense I've ever read, and I've answered it. I think he's reading into scripture to make way for fundamentalism. I have a very, very lengthy defense for our position. A book. A Pure Church.
I've written a ton on this blog, and here I've never had anyone answer the exegesis. And this, Greg, is what I think is important, and it what we're being judged by God. We would probably both agree that the labels are not a big deal.
-----------
I defend fundamentalists, because they are easier to defend, and I defend where they are scriptural. You are right that I wouldn't find much to defend of Greek Orthodox and Pentecostals, but isn't it for obvious reasons?
-----------
You do more than defend. You interact, even if only in a limited way (you certainly have with me over the years, anyway). There is still a measure of affinity, of camaraderie, dare I even say fellowship? Well, if I did, you likely would not agree. But I do think it is fellowship, albeit in a very limited fashion.
Greg,
Fellowship is yoking together for common ministry. I don't think talking is that. I don't think discussing is that. We've been clear about that here and in our book. When you flesh out what the Bible says about fellowship, it's not doing what you and I are doing. But it is true that you and I can talk, and not every fundamentalist can even do that.
By the way, I read Kevin Bauder's defense of fundamentalism, and I can appreciate a biblical defense -- it is indicative that he gets what is necessary -- but what he is saying reads as a lot new. It seems he is coming in behind a movement to justify it, by reading it into scripture.
Baptists, on the other hand, didn't care about being Baptists. They were just churches obeying the Bible. They were called Baptist like believers were called Christians.
Thanks.
Hi Kent,
You don't know me, but I've had some kind interactions with Greg in the past.
You wrote,
"As far as Baptist is concerned, I would be interested in what others would say is the answer to your comment."
Here goes.
At least with the term “Baptist” we can assess a well-articulated doctrine of ecclesiology whereas the term “fundamentalist” does not yield the same. There are still fundamentalist Presbyterian churches, unless I’m mistaken.
Without a biblical doctrine of ecclesiology that defines and condemns schism, it is spitting into the wind to chase after the doctrine of separation. But Baptists don’t have one because they rely on a doctrine of autonomy that is in disobedience to the NT (Nor do presbys, but for a different reason). I argue it is deeply flawed here (http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/when-is-a-church-not-a-church/) and scroll down to “The Free Church (Autonomy).
I pastor a church that is independent, but we are looking to end schism with churches in our region that desire to be obedient to the precepts and examples of the NT.
Thanks.
----------
Fellowship is yoking together for common ministry. I don't think talking is that. I don't think discussing is that.
----------
That is some of the difference in terms, then. Fundamentalists typically recognize different levels of fellowship. There is a certain level of agreement required depending on the level. I have a certain level of fellowship with the bivocational Calvary Chapel pastor who owns and manages the Perkin's Restaurant here in town. It doesn't extend much beyond conversation because of the significance of our differences, but we do have more fellowship than I would with the female PCUSA pastor. But if you have read Bauder, again, you already realize this.
BTW- I understand if it "reads new" to you, given the different formative influences. As someone who attended Faith (like he did earlier than I), though, I have to say that it was the same thing I heard from George and Myron Houghton and other profs like them. It is a major component of how the GARBC has practically functioned with the variety they do on some issues, while being very specific on others. As Nettleton expressed it, you either have a limited message or a limited fellowship.
To your last point- that is true, only now you have embraced it and used it formally (or at least not felt strongly enough to alter it) to identify your church. It serves as enough of an identifier where you can consider whether or not you have enough in common to warrant "yoking together for common ministry" like you have with someone like Bobby Mitchell. You probably wouldn't be as quick to explore the possibilities with someone who identified as "E-Free" or who had ditched the term church and identified as something vague like "Family Worship Center." - but maybe I'm wrong on that.
Brother Brandenburg,
The term "fundamental" fundamentally means "serving as an original or generating source" and secondarily means "of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts."
Fundamentalism as a religious movement is defined as "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs"
More generally the term can refer to "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
[Note: all definitons from Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).]
Can you be accurately described using as fitting into these definitions? What I mean is do you believe literal interpretation of the Bible is fundamental to Christian life and teaching? and do you stress strict adherence to a basic set of principles?
We could certainly engage in long discussion over what a particular Biblicial passage means literally at another time. We may even have extensive discussions about what the scope of such "basic principles" should be at a later time. But for now, how do you or do you not fit these definitions?
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Brother Brandenburg,
The term "fundamental" fundamentally means "serving as an original or generating source" and secondarily means "of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts."
Fundamentalism as a religious movement is defined as "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs"
More generally the term can refer to "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
[Note: all definitons from Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).]
Can you be accurately described using as fitting into these definitions? What I mean is do you believe literal interpretation of the Bible is fundamental to Christian life and teaching? and do you stress strict adherence to a basic set of principles?
We could certainly engage in long discussion over what a particular Biblical passage means literally at another time. We may even have extensive discussions about what the scope of such "basic principles" should be at a later time. And of course it is difficult to talk about fundamentalism without some discussion of Biblical separation. But for now, how do you or do you not fit these definitions?
For His glory,
Christian Markle
I noticed from the thread at SI that the common understanding of separation is that it should be only over the fundamentals - i.e, truths that directly affect the Gospel. So things like mode of baptism and music style are not worthy of separation.
It also seemed, from the SI thread, that, to many who identify with Fundamentalism, separation is tantamount to anathematizing - i.e., you should only separate from those with whom you would anathematize.
What I don't see in fundamentalism is a consistency in what separation is and what the fundamentals are.
I haven't read all of Kent's book yet, but I believe that he and those who share his position have a broader view of separation, whereas fundamentalists have a narrow view of separation.
Here's a few questions for those who identify themselves as fundamentalists (in the historic sense of the movement), and I ask these sincerely:
Does you church's doctrinal statement have any authority?
Do you admit into membership anyone who would reject your church's doctrinal statement?
Do you discipline any member if, after they join, they then reject part of your doctrinal statement? What does that discipline mean?
What does the unity around your doctrinal statement mean?
Why doesn't your church's doctrinal statement only contain the fundamentals?
Is it consistent to practice separation from church members over the church's doctrinal statement but then to ignore most of those doctrines for the purpose of fellowship with other churches/ministries?
What is a scriptural definition of fellowship and separation?
I ask those questions, not with the intention of buttonholing any one, but out of genuine curiosity.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure that it does answer the question though, only because I think Greg was wondering why I couldn't be a fundamentalist, but I could be a Baptist. I get that you are saying that someone can't be scriptural and be a Baptist because of the one regional church doctrine that you are espousing, but I think the point of challenge here is, am I using the name Baptist in a historical way, a definitional way?
I've read some of your critique of Baptist church government, but not enough even to grasp your argument. It seems new to me. Is there a historic basis for your belief?
Hi Greg,
I think that the levels of fellowship idea is a non-historic, new development in fundamentalism that doesn't seem originalist, but progressive. It is a reaction to schism in fundamentalism, as a sort of pressure release.
My moment of clarity does relate to the text and preservation debate. Fundamentalists historically are multiple version. That was repeated again and again at a pivotal time in fundamentalism a little over 20 years ago. I would say that officially I've known I wasn't a fundamentalist for 17 years.
I've known I wasn't a fundamentalist longer than I have been able to plainly explain my own position on unity and separation. I knew I was a separatist, different than a fundamentalist, but not exactly how I practiced it.
Is the GARBC explanation from those old GARBC profs a historical position? If the Bible did teach this kind of doctrinal and practical triage (the Mohler terminology), I would embrace it. I am not convinced by Bauder's explanation either, the core and boundary talk.
For Ryan,
If he's reading here. Is this Ryan of ReliousAffections? Christ started the church. In a church, we separate over more than the fundamentals, and that doesn't diminish the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the bodily resurrection, etc. I think that is not a valid argument. I get it. I've written on it here, how that those who elevate the so-called non-essentials diminish the essentials and the gospel. That I know of, I haven't read an exegetical presentation of that accusation. I don't believe it. Even the people who profess that seem to be moving away from it.
For instance, I read the conduct that becomes sound doctrine, essentially the gospel, in Titus. And what is that conduct? It includes not having smutty speech. And today same-gender relations are coming into consideration as a top level doctrine, because of the discussion about inclusion of same-gender in membership. They are using the non-essential argument to make room for same-genderism. The system breaks apart at that point. It's a weakness or a hole that certain professing evangelicals have found to justify inclusiveness there. We say, no, they don't believe the gospel, so that is an essential. And now MacArthur is saying that most Charismatics are unsaved because of strange fire. That's not a fundamental. I agree with him, but it fouls up the triage.
In a church, if someone is unrepentant of sin, that is a gospel issue, relates to the identity of Jesus Christ, the fundamentals, or whatever. It seems to be crashing down. No, you can love the attributes of God, the gospel related info, the inspiration of scripture, all that and require other things for fellowship.
Thanks though!
Christian,
I think you are redefining fundamentalism. I could accept your definition, but I don't think it is historic. I'm open for correction, but I think you are wrong about it. You are using a dictionary. If you read my article, I said that I could be dictionary definition fundamentalist, but that isn't fundamentalism. No offense, but we'd all have to start over if that was the case.
The first anonymous comment in this comment section linked to an article about being a fundamentalist, and he gave it an all new definition, so he would be comfortable being a fundamentalist. I don't think we get to do that or bet that.
Does anyone think that Christian is right? Is this true? Am I wrong?
Joe Cassada,
I agree completely with your evaluation and your questions. They are tell-tale, elephant-in-the-room. There is this desire to have multiple definitions of fellowship, so then what is the unity or fellowship in the church? This is where the multiple views of unity and the fellowship come in handy for fundamentalism. The question, I think, is about how it fits with God.
Good article by Fred Moritz on June 11, 2014 dealing with this topic.
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/06/11/a-certain-sound/
------------
I noticed from the thread at SI that the common understanding of separation is that it should be only over the fundamentals - i.e, truths that directly affect the Gospel.
------------
Not exactly. There is limited fellowship when there is lack of agreement. There can be a kind of separation when there is agreement, too- geographical realities, or language barriers, or limited resources...
Our church cooperates with other GARBC congregations (like Kent's, even- run "El Sobrante" on the GARBC Church Locater at http://www.garbc.org/?page_id=1410) to endorse chaplains. Doesn't mean that our church will fellowship with the GARBC church in Michigan over the CCM flavor of the month concert they are hosting. We have enough in common to serve in one way, but our specific beliefs (not to mention geographic concerns) limit our ability to serve together at least in that one specific way.
---------
Is the GARBC explanation from those old GARBC profs a historical position? If the Bible did teach this kind of doctrinal and practical triage (the Mohler terminology), I would embrace it. I am not convinced by Bauder's explanation either, the core and boundary talk.
---------
How old does something have to be to be "historical"? This certainly goes back to the earliest days of American Fundamentalism. My familiarity with the GARBC has taught me that was how the earliest leaders understood the boundaries of fellowship. David Otis Fuller was a Princeton Seminary grad, who had J. Gresham Machen stand as the best man in his wedding. The GARBC men were prominently involved in the American Council of Christian Churches (Ketcham was President at one point). Wealthy Street Baptist under Fuller regularly had Sunday School attendance contests with MR DeHaan and Calvary Church across town. Fuller was a board member at Wheaton until the 1970s...
I'm not going to re-hash the arguments- Bauder laid them out much more articulately than I could, and I am certain I could do no better at convincing you than he did. Suffice it to say that the "multiple views of unity and fellowship" and "how it sits with God" involves a measure of patience and grace, and intention to "live at peace" as much as one can. Even in your church, I presume you would allow for a variance in applications in mutually affirmed truths (you might all affirm corporal punishment, but carry out the methods in different ways based on a variety of reasons). If someone doesn't think another family is being as strict and firm as they should, you don't eventually charge them with sparing the rod (I hope). The families with different applications figure out how to live alongside one another, especially as the circumstances (such as being part of the same church) dictate.
This is no different. You are eventually going to encounter people who profess Christ who differ from your specific beliefs. At what point does that person who differs a person you share Christian commonality with, and at what point do you call that person to repent and believe the truth of the Gospel? The Fundamentalist approach you critique at least attempts to recognize that there are some who may legitimately be identified as believing the Gospel who get other (sometimes major) things wrong. These people may be regenerate, but their beliefs will make it difficult or impossible, at various levels, to have any kind of fruitful, productive partnership.
Jay at SI,
http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/i-am-not-a-cultural-fundamentalist/
I wrote on this almost four years ago. I think this would be worth a read.
Is same gender marriage a separating issue with you? Does that make you a cultural fundamentalist? Is nudity a separating issue for you? I'm not trying to be snarky, but this seems to blow the cover off (no pun intended) the doctrinal only basis for fellowship that fundamentalists want to claim.
Anonymous of the Fred Moritz article:
It is interesting. He hasn't arrived at anything yet though. It will be interesting to see how he concludes.
Greg,
I'll have more to say here, but let me explain again something; perhaps you didn't know.
We started meeting in a public school building in 1987. In 1989 a GARBC church was folding, without people, and that's how we got our buildings. I've never had a GARBC person in our church or gone to a GARBC meeting. We have not met with another GARBC church. I have had lunch with two different GARBC pastors to hash some things out. Even with the state of California, we are not a GARBC church, as we even changed our incorporation documents there. But I still, due some to laziness, I'm sure, told them to take us out of their materials. I would think they would want to take us out, since we've never come. But I've got to do something about it. I don't think my name on the website (not done by me) is fellowship. If you think it is, fine. And I mean that. But I just haven't told them to take Bethel off their list. A church isn't a building. No people that were in that GARBC church are in our church. I'll get to other stuff later.
Kent, would your view require that we separate over the identity of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? Whether women ought to have long hair or head coverings? Or whether they can wear jewelry? I don't know what your position is on any of those issues, but if someone in your church, or the pastor of a church you fellowship with, or a member of a church whose pastor you fellowship, holds to an incorrect doctrine or practice, would you separate?
Hi Ben and welcome.
Our church and I believe the Bible teaches that a church separates over doctrine and practice. We see that in the pastoral epistles especially, but among other places. We don't cut people off, that is, there is due process and people need time to grow. We don't fellowship with most people based on sheer proximity, not on their doctrine and practice. We don't separate over a different interpretation of scripture. We don't separate from those with acceptable practice that is stronger than our practice. We have drawn the line on certain doctrines and practices.
We don't separate over the interpretation of Genesis 6 because it doesn't change a doctrine or practice, but I understand that represents things like that. We don't mind women wearing head coverings. It's not wrong to do so. We would separate over hair length, but usually women who cut their hair like a man have many other issues. I can't name anyone that this has been an issue. I've never heard of someone with a position on wearing jewelry, so I would have to think about that one. Someone in close proximity to this blog believes women shouldn't wear make-up and our church does not mind if women don't wear make-up. On those issues that we would not disapprove, we treat them like liberties, but they couldn't cause division in our church over it, because division isn't permissible.
We would separate over any and every doctrine and practice, but not immediately, and different situations might look a different way. I found it interesting to see, for the first time I've seen it, Albert Mohler teach some kind of ecclesiastical separation with the article on his blog today. He used "withdraw fellowship." Maybe he's used that term a lot, but I hadn't read it. It's the first I heard it, and it seems that withdrawing fellowship from churches that accept same-gender folks is the first line I've seen drawn. I really am not trying to be snarky at all, in case it seems like it. I did a search on the web between 01/01/2000 to 03/01/2014 and there were no mentions of Albert Mohler and "withdraw fellowship" together, so I'm trying to be as scientific as possible. This is the harshest language I've ever heard him use and more than any doctrinal issue, any so-called fundamental.
Anyway. I believe that our position on unity and separation are scripturally defensible and consistent, in fitting with the nature of God.
Kent,
How do you define doctrine? I'm trying to understand your logic when you say "We don't separate over the interpretation of Genesis 6 because it doesn't change a doctrine or practice, but I understand that represents things like that.".
Hi Biblical Baptist,
Doctrine is a teaching, which is a belief. didaskalia is the Greek word. You also have to look at the usage of "doctrine" in its context. Whether a genitive is a genitive of description or possession is not a teaching. What does the preposition "for" mean in Acts 2:38? If someone doesn't believe it is "because of" is not a separating issue. However, baptismal regeneration is.
For others reading, how do you deal with 1 Timothy 6:3-5: "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. . . . from such withdraw thyself"? It doesn't say "if any many teach different fundamentals or different essentials. . . . from such withdraw thyself."
Kent,
Wouldn't differing views of Genesis 6, particularly in systematic relationship to other passages, inevitably affect our angelology—whether they can engage in sexual relations, reproduce, etc? And wouldn't it affect our anthropology in similar ways? Would that be doctrine? Or merely a less important doctrine, perhaps?
If someone understood scripture to require a "stronger practice" than you understood, wouldn't they need to separate from you? And if they didn't understand and/or apply the doctrine of separation the way you do, wouldn't you really need to separate from them? IOW, if someone believed Scripture required head coverings, but they were happy to be a part of your congregation even though people in your congregation don't practice it, wouldn't they be repudiating your doctrine of separation by not separating over ecclesiological differences?
What about the relationship of Jesus' teaching on church discipline in Matthew 18 to 1 Corinthians 5? There are different ways to account for the different processes, which would lead to different applications in contemporary circumstances. That's an interpretive difference that leads to a difference in ecclesiology—even between people who believe in and practice discipline robustly. Would that a difference that would lead to separation?
What about the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation. Some think they're Moses and Elijah. Others might have different ideas. Still others say we don't have the data to identify them. That's a difference in eschatology. And it would have implications for our bibliology, would it not, since it affects how we see Scripture being fulfilled?
Hi Ben,
One reason I say same-gender is because of Christian filters and my own email filter, which sent your comment to the trash. I always check trash first though to see if there is something from someone I know or a comment on the blog. I guess you didn't want to answer the Mohler comment. I was interested.
I think that you think you're making an argument here about the viability of this position we and others espouse. I see this as a matter of faith. The Bible teaches to do a certain thing, so it can be and must be done. I don't have negativity about it, because of my view of God. The just shall live by faith and I'm even talking about it in its Habbakkuk context. I believe that would be where to start, rather than looking for inconsistencies, which in your own mind, you're going to find. It is a kind of rationalism though. Or maybe you do start with a teaching somewhere, perhaps the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, and that buttresses the direction you take, even though that would be a very slender opening to drive the mack truck through. I say this before I answer your questions.
I think Isaiah 14 is about the king of Babylon and you might derive some Satanology from it, but everything that I've ever read doesn't add anything new to the doctrine of Satan from Isaiah 14 that you can't find elsewhere. I think the same of Genesis 6. I don't know of a different anthropology from the differing points of view, unless it is don't procreate with angels. I could agree with that view.
There is some quality control here that I mentioned, but maybe wasn't clear. Our church decides where the line is drawn, in other words, if it is doctrinal or not. So that still gives us total unity and also total purity in the only place we can have it: our church. I'm not saying decisions don't have to be made. Yes, our church decides if the the doctrine is dividing doctrine in Genesis 6. The ones you gave in the first email aren't that tricky, but I am up for the challenge to see if this will hold up to your scrutiny---whether it is all still consistent. I have written here that others are welcome to separate from me over doctrine and practice. I welcome it. Or maybe they wouldn't cut me off with the hopes that at some future time, with growth we will come to that position.
I'll get to more later tonight perhaps.
Thanks!
RE: GARBC- Thats fine... but it is interesting that as much as you seem to want to distance yourself from a relatively ambiguous term like "Fundamentalist" that someone _might_ pin on you, and that ultimately you won't be able to completely avoid because there is no way to formally leave and nothing to join- the GARBC matter (which I presume you would also not want to be identified with) is something you have a measure of control over, and choose, for whatever reason, not to.
But there you go.
Brother Brandeburg,
Thanks for replying. I hope the the following will be taken in the spirit of discussion and edification.
I get that the dictionary definition may not be a definition accepted by all, but who would you say is the authority on what "fundamentalist" should mean to all of us? It seems that to reject a standard (dictionary) out of hand and make one's own definition would require some defense and explanation which you attempt, but I will save my reply for later in this post.
To adopt the practice of redefining (without adequate justification) would mean that I (and anyone else) am free to make "fundamentalist" those who believe in pink elephants who float on red brick clouds on the bottom of the ocean. And I am not one of those kind of fundamentalists -- therefore I am not a fundamentalist. If words can be bent or twisted or defined at our own will, we may assert we are a whole host of things and deny the same amount of things, but it is all meaningless, because our readers are not in agreement with our definitions. Sadly, some less adept readers will agree or disagree without ever realizing that the definitions have been altered. This I believe is why good legal documents define their terms so we know what is meant.
I say all this to say, I do not agree with your extended explanation of fundamentalism. Early fundamentalist did not separate only over the fundamentals. They accepted a form of Christian unity around the Gospel, but they all still restricted fellowship in their respective conventions and churches to their own specific doctrinal positions. What I mean is although there were Fundamentalist Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptist all in agreement over the literal interpretation and authority of the Bible and against the liberal opposition to these views, none that I know of laid down their respective distinctives of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Baptist doctrine. More directly, I know of no wholesale amalgamation of all of the fundamentalist agreeing to let these respective distinctions join the same church. They instead become allies against a common enemy, but still remained separate from each other.
My understanding is that the fundamentals were not a basis for unity, but a test of authentic Christianity. If one does not get these things right, there is strong reason to question whether they have the true Gospel. Are there other issues to deal with in separation? Certainly, but lets get the primary thing out of the way: if you are not saved, then we have no basis for Christian unity. However, if you are truly saved, then we do have a basis for Christian unity (ie the indwelling Holy Spirit - Ephesians 4:3). That unity and subsequent fellowship will be strengthened or strained based on other agreements or disagreements (Amos 3:3).
This is the kind of fundamentalist that I am. If you deny the fundamentals, then I can have no Spiritual fellowship with you -- you are still dead in trespasses and sins. If you are truly converted and not denying the fundamentals then we have some basis (ie foundation) for fellowship, but this does not mean we will have good fellowship, because we may disagree on almost everything else in the Bible -- not much fellowship possible, but we are still brothers.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Greg,
That was 25 years ago and it only crosses my mind when someone like yourself brings it up. My name in that book means almost nothing to me, except, again, when this type of thing comes up. I was never GARBC, so I didn't have anything to leave. But I was in fundamentalism. Asking about my leaving GARBC, is like asking about my leaving the democratic party. I've never been in it to not be in it. No one who knows me would think I was GARBC. No one says it. You know it. But there are people who think I am a fundamentalist, and it's a great opportunity to talk about separation. These things do matter.
I promise you this time, if I said it before, that I will write the letter. I'm not an enemy of these men and churches.
Kent,
I'm not trying to hang you over any inconsistencies in your practice. I'm actually just trying to understand how your view works itself out in principle. If there's a tidy way to talk about that detached from the practices of your congregation, I'm happy to do that.
Now, what do you mean when you say that "our church decides if the the doctrine is dividing doctrine in Genesis 6"? Is there dividing doctrine and non-dividing doctrine? And what if there wasn't a unanimous vote, so that some thought it was and others thought it wasn't? What would happen to the people in the minority who love your church, but hold a conviction on the significance of a matter that the majority has chosen to reject?
So having clarified that bit, I'll avoid further questions since I've already left a bunch on your plate for you to address.
By the way, I took your Mohler comments as an observation. Didn't see a question. I don't know how often he uses the phrase "withdraw fellowship" either. Was there something in particular you were wondering?
As Ben (and in another way Greg) has already begun to point out, I think you are actually doing a similar thing with your brother{s} who believe that it is wrong for a woman to wear make-up. You disagree but you still have some fellowship. They are certainly gracious to fellowship with you considering you do not appear to agree with them on what they believe women should not do. You (or your respective wives)likely would not have much fellowship at a Mary Kay party, but worshiping together at church does not demand such fellowship.
I find it interesting that they are not allowed to cause division over what they appear to believe is wrong. I am sure they have a Biblical defense for such a belief, but you (and the church I presume) do not agree with their defense. Do you not see the irony here? If they really believe it is taught in Scripture then it is important and from their perspective should be followed by all. But you make a distinction about what will be a "dividing doctrine" this appears to be a similar way of saying important enough to divide over. Is that any different than what you are concerned that the "fundamentalists" have done?
For His glory,
Christian Markle
FYI: Alber Mohler's idea presented recently as "withdraw fellowship" is explained in his essay "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." He does not use the exact phrase "withdraw fellowship." Instead he uses ideas like "significant boundaries between believers" and preventing fellowship.
I do not buy into his view of triage, but I am glad to see an attempt to articulate some form of Biblical Separation.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
PS: The essay can be found here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/
Count me in on being a Biblical Baptist, not someone who believes in a handful of fundamentals.
I wrote the following elsewhere-it is relevant:
Remember that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—the church, the local, visible, Baptist congregation, is the place of God’s special presence, His special protection from Satan and his kingdom, and His promises of perpetuity and blessing until the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18). No promises of Christ’s special presence or protection are made to the mythical universal, invisible church, Para church institutions, human denominations, or inter-denominational movements such as evangelicalism. Do you claim to be a fundamentalist? If, by this term, you mean that you seek to militantly defend all the truths of the Christian faith, and militantly stand against and separate from all error, well and good—you will then, if your confession is true, be a servant of Christ in a historic Baptist church. Do you think that such a line is too strict, for “historic fundamentalism” was a parachurch movement that only recognized a handful of “fundamentals” that were worthy of separation? If that is truly “historic fundamentalism,” then you should reject such fundamentalism for the God-honoring true separatism only possible within a Biblical Baptist church that is unaffiliated with denominationalism, associationism, and all other humanly devised denominational structures. However, you should also consider that there never was a unified “historic fundamentalism.” The Fundamentals, for example, printed an essay by George Sales Bishop, who believed in the dictation of the autographa and its perfect preservation—including the perfect preservation of not the Hebrew consonants alone, but also the vowels that were originally given by inspiration—in the Textus Receptus. Yet The Fundamentals also reprinted articles by Edwin J. Orr, who “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and [who] took the view that an insistence on biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’” So who represents “historic fundamentalism”—Bishop or Orr? Does “historic fundamentalism” defend an inerrant autographa, an inerrant autographa that is perfectly preserved in the Received Texts of Scripture, or errant autographs and apographs? Indeed, while cessationists are amply represented in early fundamentalism, the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis appear also in The Fundamentals —so does “historic fundamentalism” follow Scriptural cessationism and the sole authority of Scripture, or Mrs. Penn-Lewis’s fanaticism, radical demonology, Quakerism, date-setting for Christ’s return, and allegedly “inspired” extra-Biblical writings—one of which is condensed in The Fundamentals? A unified “historic fundamentalism” is a chimera, and even if it had existed, it would possess no independent authority—the Christian’s sole authority is the Bible alone, and the Bible teaches that every religious organization on earth in this dispensation, if it wants to have the special presence of Jesus Christ, must be under the authority of one of His churches. Fundamentalist parachurch institutions are not churches. Do you value the Lord’s church in the way that One does who bought her with His blood (Ephesians 5:25)? If you do not, but are following some movement, whether evangelical, fundamental, or by any other name, your organization does not possess the promises Christ makes to His church alone. Beware lest Christ say to you, and to your organization, “cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?” (Luke 13:7).
JessiePenn-Lewis claimed that her writings were thus nothing but “determined obedience to the ‘heavenly vision,’” and, she said, “I cannot write one sentence unless I receive it from God” by “inspiration,” thus producing her “Overcomer Literature” in this manner. For example, by means of a “special vision,” she described how she had one of her books revealed to her: “[A]s I was going to bed, there suddenly flashed upon me [the book] The Message of the Cross with every chapter marked—the whole scheme, every heading, chapter and title. Next morning I arose with every bit of it printed on my mind. I went to my study—locked the door—took each passage and wrote it as rapidly as it was possible. . . . Will the devil leave me alone over this?” In association with this book she also narrates: “In a dream I arose and went downstairs and sat alone far away in the vision. A voice came to me from the glory . . . [t]he knowledge was unspeakable.” She wrote:
I was suddenly within the veil. . . . It seemed as if I and the Lord were one. He stood before the Father holding out His pierced hands, but it was I who stood there, too, in Him. He was saying ‘Father I have died,’ but I was saying it, too. Calvary seemed far away down on the hillside.
This was the Risen Lord with marks of the wounds, in the presence of the Father—and I was there. I saw Calvary within the veil. My whole being was melted.
These visions built upon her supernatural encounter earlier in the year:
I suddenly began to feel pressed and burdened. My head fell on my breast with heavy breathing and for some time I groaned heavily. Then God spoke, ‘He who knew no sin was made sin on our behalf.’ I felt as if part of myself or a member of my body was corrupt and loathsome. It was part of me and tied to me by life and I could not be separated from it.
Thus I knew what it meant for Him who knew no sin to be made Sin, to have identified with Him and the accursed ones, corrupt with the fallen life and yet joined to Him their Redeemed. For a week I walked so strangely under ceaseless condemnation. All I did seemed wrong. My conscience void of offense seemed to become all offense without a cause. . . . The lesson was that it was all permitted of God to teach me how truly the Pure and Holy One suffered as He became SIN on our behalf.
It was a fellowship of Christ’s sufferings in the one sense, that it lets one understand His agony as the sin-bearer. . . . This was the first deep knowledge of the Cross.
Thus, the material for her books came from the spirit world, visions, dreams, voices, experiences with heavy breathing, groaning, parts of her body feeling corrupt and loathsome, and so on. Her teaching on “those deeper aspects of Romans 6 and Colossians 2” were “revealed” to her in such a manner—rather than from the study of the Bible, which teaches, on the contrary, that while Christ endured the punishment of the sinful world in a vicarious way, sin being imputed to Him, He nevertheless was never personally sinful. Thus, by her visions and revelations, she gained that “deep knowledge of the Cross” which contradicts what Scripture teaches about the work of Christ on the cross.
This is the woman who had one of her writings published in the set The Fundamentals.
Sources:
Pgs. 53-55, Mrs. Penn-Lewis: A Memoir, Garrard.
Pg. 66, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
Pg. 89, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
Pgs. 87-88, The Trials and Triumphs of Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis, Jones.
Ben,
Maybe this means we can converse now and then -- I thought that had ended.
Ben: Now, what do you mean when you say that "our church decides if the the doctrine is dividing doctrine in Genesis 6"?
Kent: I didn't mean specifically Gen 6, but an interpretational issue like that. A decision does have to be made as to whether there's a doctrine that will separate us from someone. Generally, we are not looking to separate, but unify if we have the same doctrine and practice -- what divides us is the doctrine and practice of our church. For instance, 1 Timothy 2 tells women to be silent. We practice differently ourselves than we did 15 years ago. Only the men vote in our church. We don't separate from everyone different there, because it doesn't divide us from another church -- not like egalitarianism would -- and not because it isn't important.
Ben: Is there dividing doctrine and non-dividing doctrine?
Kent: We are not required to fellowship with another church. We do and that's encouraged (2 and 3 John), but based upon doctrine and practice, the truth, not on diminishing of truth. Our church decides to divide or not. The dividing doctrine is one we divide over -- we believe it and they don't. It isn't anything that we look for, but sometimes it works that way. For instance, a pastor of another church is plainly disqualified, and that church doesn't disqualify him. He stays as pastor. Our church might decide to divide with a church with which we're in fellowship over that. That isn't a fundamental, but we still separate over it. I'm not talking about categories of dividing doctrines and undividing ones -- that's not what I meant, even though I could see, coming from where you are, you might think that. You might be asking if we separate over everything in the Bible. We might. There isn't anything we wouldn't separate over, but we aren't looking to separate. If we do, it's based on what our church believes--that's what divides. Is there anything other than the fundamentals that your church will separate from another church over? What basis do you have for doing that? Do you minimize the gospel by separating?
Ben: And what if there wasn't a unanimous vote, so that some thought it was and others thought it wasn't?
Kent: For over a decade, probably more like 15 years, all of our votes are unanimous. We teach total unity. We don't move unless everyone agrees, one mind, everyone with the same thinking (1 Cor 1:10, etc.)
Ben (cont),
Ben: What would happen to the people in the minority who love your church, but hold a conviction on the significance of a matter that the majority has chosen to reject?
Kent: It hasn't happened. But people fit into what everyone else is thinking. Even if they are not convinced, unity is required. They won't cause division over it. If someone differs, there would be opportunity to convince everyone else, but in the end, if everyone else is not convinced, they've got to go with the majority and not cause division. This is hypothetical at our church, but every church has people that are at different points of Christian growth, and since everyone is growing, people will be changing. Churches will be changing, but that doesn't mean there are several contradicting doctrines and practices. There is where scripture speaks. Where it doesn't, there is liberty.
Ben: I don't know how often he uses the phrase "withdraw fellowship" either. Was there something in particular you were wondering?
Kent: Is same sex marriage violating a fundamental for the Southern Baptists? It's the only thing I've read Mohler say he would withdraw over. There might be other things, but he hasn't said, that I've read. This is the first line that I've seen him make. Is he undermining the gospel by bringing some that is not of first importance into a matter of first importance? Why not adultery? Why not covetousness? I wonder about the sudden separation language. Is he a cultural fundamentalist? I'm having some fun with this, but don't be upset -- it's honest fun, not meant to offend you.
Thanks.
Christian,
I wonder if what you are describing is what fundamentalists actually think. I wonder if it is what you think. You say that your fellowship is not as good when someone is disobedient, unless I have that wrong. This sounds like the triage of Mohler, a different degree of fellowship. If you read Bauder, he says that the fellowship is only over the gospel. Does that represent authentic fundamentalism IYO?
When there is an FBF meeting is that fellowship? We disciplined people out of our church and they joined an FBF church. I wrote other churches about that, but that didn't matter as to fellowship. I was told many years ago that must be ignored and fellowship anyway. Am I allowing the leaven to leaven my lump by fellowshiping with the leaven?
You are saying, it seems, that fundamentalism is not about fellowship, but about whether people are truly saved or not, testing as to whether they are saved. And if someone is not truly saved, because he doesn't believe the fundamentals, is he now a recipient of fellowship?
I don't think fellowship is people who are truly saved all getting together on that basis alone, so it still isn't working for me.
But I'm open.
Thomas,
I hope people read your comments.
Ben,
That didn't seem like as many questions as I thought, and the reason was that I didn't scroll up to your first question. Let's go there.
I think I answered Gen. 6. And I answered the stronger than you comment.
Ben: IOW, if someone believed Scripture required head coverings, but they were happy to be a part of your congregation even though people in your congregation don't practice it, wouldn't they be repudiating your doctrine of separation by not separating over ecclesiological differences?
Kent: That sounds like something I would ask. There is no such thing as secondary separation -- it's separating over the doctrine of separation. Someone isn't practicing separation. Maybe the person doesn't believe in head coverings, it's either just a preference or for conscience sake. I'm not assuming someone won't change, so as long as there is no division, no problem. But technically, is he disobeying scripture for not separating over a teaching of scripture? We're willing to be patient, so we would give them time. In the end, they should join somewhere that practices what they believe.
There are other questions like this that I don't think destroy this doctrine. As I said, it is a matter of faith. You have a man and woman living somewhere with no church that believes like she does. He's fine with it. Is she disobeying scripture? I think she should do the best she can do. I would say that to anyone. That isn't their goal or even what they believe. I don't think someone has shucked his belief in separation if he is at the best church he can be in for a situation he has to be in, but his goal should be for it to change.
Ben: What about the relationship of Jesus' teaching on church discipline in Matthew 18 to 1 Corinthians 5? There are different ways to account for the different processes, which would lead to different applications in contemporary circumstances. That's an interpretive difference that leads to a difference in ecclesiology—even between people who believe in and practice discipline robustly. Would that a difference that would lead to separation?
Kent: I haven't thought about this. We do deal with all those passages in our book, A Pure Church. But I think I answered this question in principle in previous comments. If I haven't, let me know. I think you are asking if someone practices separation in violation to scripture, should we separate from him? Yes. But again, we don't cut people off. The point of separation is to help a person learn. But right now, I don't know of anyone I am fellowshiping with that practices differently.
Ben: What about the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation. Some think they're Moses and Elijah. Others might have different ideas. Still others say we don't have the data to identify them. That's a difference in eschatology. And it would have implications for our bibliology, would it not, since it affects how we see Scripture being fulfilled?
Kent: Moses and Elijah, like Gen 6. I really don't get what you are saying. Affecting our bibliology? I don't think the identity of the witnesses is clear. No disrespect, but this one seems like you were stretching for something. You seem to be tongue in cheek here and playing around. I'm taking you at face value, like you are interested in this conversation. Are you still open to change? Do you think you're settled as it relates to the doctrine of separation? Or at least are you attempting to persuade me of your settled position?
"This is the woman who had one of her writings published in the set The Fundamentals"
Let the WOMEN keep SILENCE (it does not say "keep silent", but rather it is given to all of them to "police" each other within the church not to speak!) in the church and not to usurp authority over the man. There is NO PLACE in that book that allows a women to teach men about spiritual things.
So, if "you are least esteemed" in the church, who cares what she had to say?
Hi,
I've been keeping up at SharperIron and in the event that the readers there are coming here to look at the comment section, I want to answer some there.
Jay (if you're reading),
Again, we're very, very specific about what scripture says about cultural issues. We're not nebulous at all. That is absolutely wrong, when you say that. If you need interaction, I'm here, but saying something patently untrue to characterize us/me can only harm.
Sean Ferricks,
You say I thrive on separation and not on fellowship. No. Wrong. Scripture teaches both. There is no such thing as separation if there is no fellowship. I'm not slapping at fundamentalists because I thrive on separation. That is a lie. Interact here instead of telling lies. Thank you. We want true fellowship, true love, true grace. There are impostors for all of those. I want true fellowship, not the kind you have at the family reunion, where you talk about weather and your major league baseball team. If you are going to make strong personal statements, come here and say them rather than using the drone attack.
Ed,
I agree with about everything you said until the end, really the last paragraph. You said you can't be biblical and that is arrogant for someone to say, "I am biblical." Do people really agree with you on that? I would be surprised. Does being biblical really require sinless perfection? I don't think so, biblically. We can say we're biblical. How do you lead a church if you say, "Here's what the Bible says, but I can't say that it's right, because no one can say it's right, and if they do, they're being arrogant."
Greg,
I'd be happy for you to show me how that fellowship is pie and coffee in the church basement. The Bible would indicate that it is more than that. That isn't even fellowship. If it is, then separation and fellowship mean almost nothing. But the Bible indicates that it is more than that. Again, we have a whole book dealing with the passages. Have you read it? That would be what you would argue with. We take our position from exegesis, not what looks like it will work the best for us or for anyone else.
------------
I'd be happy for you to show me how that fellowship is pie and coffee in the church basement.
------------
If that were my argument, I'd be happy to attempt to show you. Since it isn't, forgive me if I don't pursue it. At the same time, I will say that sharing food is often portrayed as a venue conducive to fellowship.
All I am saying is that fellowship can have degrees to which it is realized. We have fellowship with God through Christ when we walk in the light (1 John 1:6-7). Paul did not enjoy the same degree of relationship with Philemon when he interceded on behalf of Onesimus. Paul would also recognize that even sharing a meal with an unrepentant sinner excommunicated from a congregation constituted an unacceptable level of fellowship.
Fellowship is based on what is held in common. Those of us involved in the conversation can have it because, in spite of our differences, there are enough commonalities shared that allow us to get specific- we can assume some basic principles are true given who we're speaking to. Kent doesn't have to convince Ben of the validity of the Trinity, or penal substitution... because they hold that in common. For the purposes of this conversation, anyway, we are not debating whether or not the exclusivity of the King James Bible is a valid position- because that would disrupt the commonality of those conversing. We limit the message to allow for a degree of fellowship.
Greg,
When we start in Acts 2, we see it is having all things in common in the church, so we know it is in the church -- one mind, one doctrine, one practice -- complete partnership with each other, like the Father and the Son have interTrinitarian, as Jesus talked about in John 17, which is tied fully into the truth, the Word of God.
When we take that outside of a church, there is a narrower perspective, and, I see, more so today, because there wasn't centuries of doctrinal deviation to deal with that make the potpourri that we see today.
We see something outside of the church in 3 John 1:5-8: "5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; 6 Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: 7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. 8 We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth."
John was instructing that they receive these on a journey, fellowshelpers of the truth. The truth was obviously the basis of the fellowship. These were people who were working together.
koinonia is found 17 times in the NT, and the first usage is what I described above, sort of establishing the baseline for it. In 2 Cor 6, it is yoking together, which is two animals, as you know, working together, same labor, effort. We talk to unbelievers all the time, even have pie and coffee, but we don't fellowship with them. In 2 Cor 9 it is money. In Gal 2:9, it is partnership in going to the heathen. Anyway, when you look at all the usages, it is something unique, above discussing doctrine like we are. You might think this is fellowship, but I don't because according to the truth we partner, and we aren't going to partner, because of the doctrinal and practical differences. That doesn't mean I don't love you. I love you, and again in the truth. I rejoice in the truth you believe and persuade you in the truth.
It is important to get this baseline of fellowship, if we are going to understand what separation is. I understand that there are some kind of levels in play here, but I don't believe it is levels of fellowship.
Thanks.
Kent,
There was doctrinal deviation even then... the NT epistles speak directly of such manifestations. The 3 John passage says that the fellowship- even with strangers- centered on truth, yes. But do you think they always had the luxury of determining someone's position on the place of Jewish feast days before taking someone in? Wouldn't they begin by affirming basics, and sometimes that being all they had time to determine before parting ways again?
As to whether or not this is fellowship- even I would contend it is very loose. Still, even you recognize that we share some common belief in the truth. Whatever it is, it is more than what we would share in conversing with the unregenerate. It is more than I would have in conversing with my Calvary Chapel friend. It might not be the same as I have with the churches in the area we cooperate with for Bible conferences and such, and certainly isn't as close as what I enjoy with the saints at 1BC Marshall. But because we are in some way connected because of mutually affirmed truth, whatever it is, it is more than just talk.
I want to try to articulate the main points from your side of our interchange, beginning with the initial post. I think it's a fair summary. Let me know if it's not. I'll probably have a couple questions or comments, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same stuff first. And I'll try to answer your questions to me in a follow up comment. So here's my attempt to distill your main points:
1. Churches should practice separation—both internally and externally—over every doctrine and practice in the Bible. There are no such categories as essentials and non-essentials. "To keep the doctrines and practices of the Bible, which are plain, we have to separate over all of it."
2. Churches should't immediately cut off people or other churches who are guilty of false doctrine or sinful practice, but give them time to grow and change. There needs to be a due process.
3. Not all non-fellowship is separation. Other factors, such as proximity, preclude fellowship or limit its benefit, thereby making it imprudent.
4. Churches shouldn't separate over different interpretations of scripture that don't affect doctrine or practice..
5. Churches shouldn't separate from those with acceptable practice that is stronger than our practice.
6. Churches should draw the line on certain doctrines and practices.
7. Women voting in church decision-making is an important matter, but it's not something that should cause a division between churches.
8. There shouldn't be anything we wouldn't separate over, but we also shouldn't be looking to separate.
9. Churches should teach total unity. They shouldn't move unless everyone agrees, one mind, everyone with the same thinking.
10. A minority in a church who aren't convinced that the majority's decision is correct are need to go along with the majority, maintain unity, and not cause division.
11. At some point in time, people who are settled in disagreement with a doctrine or practice of the church should join somewhere that practices what they believe.
Kent' your questions to me in italics. My replies follow.
Is there anything other than the fundamentals that your church will separate from another church over? What basis do you have for doing that? Do you minimize the gospel by separating?
I think it depends what exactly we define as separation. Earlier this year we jointly hosted a Children Desiring God conference in cooperation with two churches we couldn't cooperate with to plant a church. We've brought several gospel-preaching churches together on a Sunday evening for prayer, but we wouldn't ask all those pastors to do, say, evangelism training in our church because our methodological convictions and, frankly, the theological convictions underlying the methodology just wouldn't be compatible with theirs. I'm sure I could think of other examples, real or hypothetical. Anything you're fishing for?
Is same sex marriage violating a fundamental for the Southern Baptists?...Is Mohler undermining the gospel by bringing some that is not of first importance into a matter of first importance?
I'm not sure how to answer the first question. The SBC doesn't really use that paradigm as a convention, so far as I've observed. Though we have what I think we could call a confession, we're actually not a confessional denomination. We're confessional in our cooperation. That is, all denominational officers and employees—including all the seminaries, missions agencies, etc.—need to affirm the confession. That confession is much broader than the gospel. It includes the things that Southern Baptists have affirmed that the people we pay to spread the gospel, plant churches, and train pastors need to believe.
So having said all that, churches that affiliate with the SBC don't need to affirm the confession. They do need to affirm that they're "in friendly cooperation" with the SBC and act accordingly. In what seems to me to be a quirky (but perhaps understandably so) amendment to our constitution, the one and only thing specifically identified as not in friendly cooperation is acting "to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." So I see Mohler's statement as reflective of the SBC's constitution and his role as an employee. In this point and the previous one, you seem to be acting on a perception that I think the gospel is the only thing we should ever separate over. I don't recall ever making that argument.
You seem to be tongue in cheek [about the two witnesses in Revelation] and playing around. I'm taking you at face value, like you are interested in this conversation. Are you still open to change? Do you think you're settled as it relates to the doctrine of separation? Or at least are you attempting to persuade me of your settled position?
Not at all. You seemed to be arguing that you'd separate over all matters of doctrine, and this was the first minute issue of eschatological doctrine that popped into my head. I'm trying to test your assertion about separation to find out exactly what it means.
As for your questions, I hope I'm always open to change as my understanding of Scripture grows. At this point, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. But I might.
By the way, I've often thought that if I held the traditional fundamentalist doctrine of separation (Pickering, McCune, Moritz, etc.), I'd have to separate from pretty much every person, church, and institution in the movement. I suspect that we're surprisingly similar in our assessment of that movement, but obviously significantly different in some other areas.
Ben,
I'm going to answer and comment on your comments. I'm sorry I didn't fully trust you, but our relationship has been pretty negative going back pretty far, I don't think initiated by me, but I'm willing to own up to anything that I don't know about. I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive to you.
One general comment before I depart tonight. I don't think that everything as clean as some would like everything to be, and I think faith fills in the blanks on practice. The propositional truths in scripture about what we're doing can be kept and I believe that. Something that might seem or feel inconsistent just isn't. We are always striving to get there, struggling to get there, which is my view of sanctification (a historic view). That doesn't change the position. I think it's best personally to argue out the teaching on the subject first, before we go to the application. I'm willing to do that because I'm fine doing that too. I just think the best order is doctrine and then practice. That's how Paul does it. Going in reverse can be helpful induction, so either way is fine. You are into doctrine, so perhaps you already know all of what we'd talk about anyway. I mentioned 1 Timothy 6:3-5 as a sample above. I don't think that is isolated.
I was thinking about Elijah and Elisha in the apostate northern kingdom when I thought about the practice of those with a church that doesn't believe like them, but is as close to possible. This doesn't do away with one truth, one doctrine and practice. We don't adjust our doctrine to the exception. This is where everyone should be headed. I know someone who is immersed in a moderate evangelicalism, accepting of varied disobedience, knows its wrong, but just can't move from his parents, and there is no church in driving distance. This is not the basis of a doctrine and practice. I wouldn't separate from him because of his situation. I want to encourage him.
And I appreciate your answering my questions. Perhaps a difference between you and me is that I couldn't live with what you are describing, or maybe you're having a hard time too. But I'll comment on that as well.
Hi Dave Barnhart (sp?),
In the case that you are still reading comments here, I didn't get banned on SI. I couldn't post, but there was no "banned" under my name. I didn't do anything to get banned. In my tone, I don't think I did anything but met the tone that greeted me -- matched the rhetoric -- which at times is necessary IMO. I think there is a biblical basis to do it at times. I'm sure I went over the line at times, but I also admitted it when I believed I did. I don't mind pugilism at me. I don't like pejorative and ad hominem. Strength is fine. Look at my relationship with Don Johnson. He's no wilting flower, and we don't agree on some basic stuff, as much as I do with you.
The former owner printed an article that called us lemmings of Don Waite. All, and I mean all, I wrote was that this violated the SI policy. That's when I got my new status. He said he didn't want my kind there. He meant beliefs. Have you noticed some of the shots taken by people in the present thread there on SI? That is typical of those left of me, and they don't get moderated. I don't know that they should, but people should please not hold me to a much higher standard than that. It's hypocrisy. Thanks.
The spelling is correct.
I've edited the post on SI to reflect what really happened. I remember now about you just having posting privileges removed rather than being banned, so I want to get the facts straight in my post.
I know Don is no shrinking violet, and I remember him getting into trouble at SI under the old management too. I was one of those who argued to have his privileges restored under the new management when he wanted to return, for the same reasons I articulated in my recent post to Tyler. I appreciate Don's perspective as well, and I read Oxgoad too, though sometimes I have to remind myself to do so since he posts less frequently.
I've seen the posts on SI you refer to as well as what is said about SI and its participants by some of the posters here. I have come to expect some of that in online interaction -- there can be no sharpening without some sparks. Occasionally, however, posts like Tyler's are appreciated and help remind us to stay on target.
I'll answer in italics.
1. Churches should practice separation—both internally and externally—over every doctrine and practice in the Bible. There are no such categories as essentials and non-essentials. "To keep the doctrines and practices of the Bible, which are plain, we have to separate over all of it." Good.
2. Churches should't immediately cut off people or other churches who are guilty of false doctrine or sinful practice, but give them time to grow and change. There needs to be a due process.Good.
3. Not all non-fellowship is separation. Other factors, such as proximity, preclude fellowship or limit its benefit, thereby making it imprudent.Good.
4. Churches shouldn't separate over different interpretations of scripture that don't affect doctrine or practice.Good.
5. Churches shouldn't separate from those with acceptable practice that is stronger than our practice.I've only been asked about this recently, but I don't see this as a belief or practice. We don't cut people off. It doesn't affect us to accept something we find nothing wrong with. That's been my only point. Someone may practice more modest dress than us. That doesn't affect us. I think you are saying that acceptance of the stronger practice is my saying there is more than one doctrine and practice. You are saying, I think, that not separating from someone who doesn't separate over every doctrine is betraying this belief. I think there are a lot of other feasible or reasonable explanations.
6. Churches should draw the line on certain doctrines and practices.Good.
7. Women voting in church decision-making is an important matter, but it's not something that should cause a division between churches.The Bible doesn't say this per se. It's an application. It's an application of the doctrine. Male authority, women usurping authority, and women being silent are the doctrines. People can believe that and practice that not in all the same way.
Ben (2),
8. There shouldn't be anything we wouldn't separate over, but we also shouldn't be looking to separate.Good
9. Churches should teach total unity. They shouldn't move unless everyone agrees, one mind, everyone with the same thinking.On biblical belief and practice. Not where the Bible doesn't teach.
10. A minority in a church who aren't convinced that the majority's decision is correct are need to go along with the majority, maintain unity, and not cause division.Good. Division is given as the standard. Rom 16:17-18. 1 Cor 1:10. People are changing and growing. There is due process. There is never a point that practically a church is the same doctrine and practice in practice. Church members shouldn't cause disunity -- that's all this is.
11. At some point in time, people who are settled in disagreement with a doctrine or practice of the church should join somewhere that practices what they believe.There is only one doctrine and practice, but part of growth is getting there. Is it our doctrine and practice? I've changed numerous times in 52 years. The Bible is still clear and there is still one doctrine and practice. The Bible says so. I'm always happy to have that be proven wrong with scripture.
Ben,
I don't think I have a comment to your answers in the second comment, except the only two options aren't evangelical or fundamentalist. There are many more people out there who are neither.
Things are getting worse out there. Someone's wrong. If we really are swinging and totally whiffing, I'm open to know it. But in my desire to know it, so far it hasn't moved me away from this position at all. It has reinforced it.
"7. Women voting in church decision-making is an important matter, but it's not something that should cause a division between churches.
The Bible doesn't say this per se. It's an application. It's an application of the doctrine. Male authority, women usurping authority, and women being silent are the doctrines. People can believe that and practice that not in all the same way.
Well said. When are the women to keep silence? Should they stay silent during a testimony time? Should they stay silent when the church gathers to eat? Should they not teach the children in church?
It is what ALL the elders agree upon, THAT is the standard (100% agreement). The women on the other hand when taught these truths, if they are godly, ought to want to obey those verses and put their faith in the Lord, who has established the authority of the church to let the elders of the church agree as to when they should be obeyed IN THE CONTEXT of the church being assembled.
I don't think I have a comment to your answers in the second comment, except the only two options aren't evangelical or fundamentalist. There are many more people out there who are neither.
Exactly. Many of the "fundamentalist" churches I know are nothing more than liberals in doctrine and in practice and they will never change. GARBC churches are a great example of this.
"Things are getting worse out there. Someone's wrong. If we really are swinging and totally whiffing, I'm open to know it. But in my desire to know it, so far it hasn't moved me away from this position at all. It has reinforced it."
Amen and Amen.
Bro. Brandenburg:
I am pasting a comment I put in at SI, because I want your take on this.
----------------
When I say, "I'm a fundamentalist," I am using it in the original sense of the word and what it meant in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. That is, there are certain basic fundamental doctrines that define theological orthodoxy - lines which cannot be moved. These are the bare minimum, the bare essentials that define the Christian faith. Therefore, when I say, "I'm a fundamentalist," I am speaking in terms of orthodoxy vs. theological liberalism. I don't mean in terms of fundamentalists vs. evangelicals. I mean in terms of orthodoxy vs. heresy.
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority in this perspective or not. It's just what I mean when I claim the label "fundamentalist." I am saying:
1. There are certain non-negotiable lines in the sand which define and characterize the Christian faith (e.g. inerrancy of Scripture, virgin birth of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection of Christ, authenticity of Biblical miracles).
2. These lines must be defended against theological liberalism - and we ought to be militant about it.
To re-state, fundamentalism is not about:
1. Being Baptist
2. Being dispensational
3. Being a pre-millennialist
4. The KJV Bible
5. Neo-evangelicals
6. John MacArthur
7. Anything else
It is merely a particular philosophy of ministry, not a denomination or a sect. It crosses denominational lines and unites around the idea that orthodoxy can be defined, that the rule of faith does indeed exist, and that these fundamentals must be defended. The rise of so-called "gay Christianity" is an appropriate example of a threat that needs a defense, because to advocate for this position fundamentally impugns the work of Christ.
That is why I say I am a fundamentalist.
Hi Tyler,
It seems you are making the same argument as Christian above -- you'll have to read him in order to see if you agree with him. If what you are saying is true, then Kevin Bauder is wrong, Dave Doran is wrong, etc. on what it is to be a fundamentalist. According to Kevin Bauder in his book chapter on fundamentalism, I'm a hyper fundamentalist, not a historic fundamentalist.
What you are saying is that to be a fundamentalist, you have to believe the fundamentals. If that is the case, then most non-separatist evangelicals are fundamentalists. When I was in college and then graduate school, at that time, that was proclaimed by the FBF and agreed all around as "pseudo-fundamentalism," that said that fundamentalism was merely believing the fundamentals. Jerry Falwell was a "believing the fundamentals" fundamentalist, therefore, a pseudo-fundamentalist.
Evangelicals seem to believe that separation is part of what it is to be a fundamentalist. They don't want to be one and they don't talk about separating over the fundamentals.
You are saying I am in fact a fundamentalist because I'm within those bounds of the rule of faith, that sets me apart as a saved person in the realm of orthodoxy. This is Christian's position.
I don't think you are correct. Fellowship is around only the fundamentals for the fundamentalist; therefore, separate is based on them. But I'm open to be proven wrong.
Interesting discussion. "Fellowship" is a Biblical word, so it is important to define it consistently with Scripture.
"Fundamentalist" is not a Biblical word, and since its definition is a moving target, with different people having different views as to what makes a fundamentalist, debates about who is and who isn't one just seem to lead to disputing about words to no profit. I gave it up a couple years ago.
By Kent's definition of the word, I'm not one, either. By the frequent SI definition, I'm not, either. By the world's media-driven definition, I'm not one, either.
If we use the definition that a fundamentalist is not prepared to call you a Christian and a brother unless you believe certain things, then I guess I'm willing to be known as a fundamentalist by that definition. But actually hardly anyone has ever seen it as merely that. The new evangelicals certainly didn't see it as merely that, or they wouldn't have bothered to split from it.
It seems to me a label really only has benefit if it has a generally agreed definition. Failing that, it just generates confusion. I'm willing to debate definitions of Biblical terms, because there you have an anchor, a specific framework within which your definition must fit.
Fundamentalism doesn't have that. So in trying to define it, you end up debating extra-Biblical history, what some preaches said and did 75-100 years ago, perceptions from the 70s, current perceptions, differing perceptions of believers and the world at large, etc, etc, etc. Blech.
Turning back to fellowship. Kent, I don't have your Pure Church book yet, hope to have my daughter bring it home this summer (but she's got a lot of stuff to bring, so it may not happen). So quick question -- have you addressed the use of "fellowship" in I John 1 in the book?
It seems to me that I John 1 uses the word in a broader sense than you do, as referring to a spiritual unity between us and the Father, which of course then extends to us and other believers.
"Fellowship is yoking together for common ministry."
But it seems to me if two believers never meet, never yoke together for common ministry, that they would still each have fellowship with the Father and thus there would be a unity of fellowship between them -- because fellowship with one another is driven by fellowship with the Father. And should they ever meet, that joint fellowship would be something that they would immediately recognise, whether they work together in ministry or not.
Years ago, on SI, you told me that you were not in fellowship with me but that you would call me "brother." If I followed correctly, that was based on your narrow definition of fellowship. But you have a broader definition of what I'll call "mutual brotherhood." But doesn't I John 1 fit more with the "mutual brotherhood" concept than your definition of fellowship?
Would appreciate your thoughts. But if it is in your book, like I said, I hope to have it soon so no need to reinvent the wheel here.
Bro. Brandenburg:
You wrote:
What you are saying is that to be a fundamentalist, you have to believe the fundamentals.
----------------------
Not at all. A lot of evangelicals would not be willing to fight for the fundamentals. They'll take so-called "gay Christianity," add in the hermeneutic of love, and say, "We don't want to be divisive. Let's agree to disagree." A fundamentalist would stomp his foot down and call it the apostasy that it is - whether he's a Baptist, Presbyterians, etc.
A fundamentalist also believes Christians who coddle and tolerate brothers who deny or refuse to stand on the "fundamentals" is being clearly disobedient. This is real different from, for example, evangelical who signed the Manhattan Declaration. A fundamentalist wouldn't stand together with false teachers in any endeavour. Why not? Because the false teachers are outside the rule of faith. They're not believers.
The fundamentals are the bare minimum required for orthodoxy. It doesn't mean I'll have them all in to preach in my church. Fellowship is another matter (and another thread). It just means that I'm willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with other fundamentalists (of whatever theological stripe) for defending orthodoxy against heresy.
I am a fundamentalist, because I believe that it means something. I'm also a Baptist. I'm also a dispensationalist. And on and on. What I'm saying is that "fundamentalist" doesn't sum up my theological position, nor should it. It merely sums up my philosophy of orthodoxy; e.g. - there are fundamentals of the faith and they must be defended against.
Not sure if I'm making too much sense. Have a good Monday!
Brother Brandenburg,
It appears that I have not made my position clear enough. Or at least your summary/understanding of my position is not accurate. I do believe that fundamentalism includes the idea of separation (not often characteristic of most evangelicals). Furthermore, my position on separation is not only about the Gospel, it simply starts with the Gospel.
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Jon Gleason,
Look up Mid-Coast Baptist Church of Brunswick, Maine, and email me through that. I'll send you a book compliments of the church. We've bought and sent several for missionaries and pastors. It is a worthy cause and we are glad to do it.
Everyone,
I'll be trying soon to answer other comments, but I'm going to answer Christian's now.
Christian,
I hope I haven't offended you. Not trying to, and not trying to misrepresent what you've said. Maybe you've been clear or maybe my reading comprehension is bad. But are you saying that a fundamentalist is someone who separates over at least the fundamentals? If you separate over more than that, you are still a fundamentalist?
I would be a fundamentalist then. Maybe that is what makes the term fundamentalist so ambiguous. I've not understood that to be the meaning. Could you point me to something that backs up this definition?
There is always a hysteresis encountered with any historical term such as "fundamentalist", therefore trying to pin others down to ones understanding of that term can be very difficult at times.
------------
But are you saying that a fundamentalist is someone who separates over at least the fundamentals? If you separate over more than that, you are still a fundamentalist?
------------
Seriously, Kent? Hasn't that been the contention all along that many have made- someone can be recognized as a fellow believer, yet not a fellow Baptist or what have you? That even someone who is a Baptist can separate themselves in some sense over things like worship practices, or dispensational hermeneutic, etc? Or am I misunderstanding you or Christian?
Brother Brandenburg,
No, I am not offended (just short on time so having to limit my normal verbosity ;-).
To your other questions: Yes and Yes.
I think a careful reading of Br. Bauder's chapter in the 3 views book demonstrates this.
Frankly, I would love to have conversation about definitions of more than fundamentalism(ist). Other words that need discussion and fleshing out what everyone means (for I think there are too many assumptions about what we all mean) would be: separation, and fellowship. For me intentionally limiting fellowship is a form of biblical separation. And fellowship is more than platform partnership in a public ministry. Fellowship happens as I talk about God and His word, works, and ways in private with another Christian--even one I could not have public partnering ministry with. Unfortunately, I do not have time for a thorough examination of the word koinonia and its uses in the NT, but I think Greg L. has suggested 1 John 1 as a good place to start.
Grace and Peace -- for His glory,
Christian Markle
Greg and Christian, this probably answers both:
The Doran/Bauder types (and I don't mean that as pejorative, just don't know what to call them) say that fundamentalists have not separated over which version of the Bible you use or over a litany of other things, cultural issues, Calvinism, etc. Those who separate over everything taught by the Bible are "everythingists," not fundamentalists. So are you repudiating that? Bauder is wrong?
I understand that fundamentalists stand for the fundamentals, but how does that work without fellowship? If you fellowship over the truth, and the truth is the entire Bible, the faith once delivered, it seems you are redefining fellowship for the coalition or cooperation. It seems there isn't any real purpose.
It also seems that there is more to it than the fundamentals, but also separation. Separation is also a fundamental, or else most Southern Baptists are fundamentalists.
Do John MacArthur and Phil Johnson fellowship with anyone who doesn't believe in the fundamentals? Would they not be fundamentalists, then?
All that being said, it comes back to whether fellowship is around the fundamentals. Both of you mentioned 1 John 1. John wrote the three epistles and he made it more than the fundamentals. Walking in the light, confessing sin, having fellowship like the Father and the Son do -- these are not just the fundamentals. 1 John 2:4 -- you say that you know him, don't keep his commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you. The light is more than just the gospel. It's doctrinal and practical.
It seems that fundamentalism does partner for the sake of the fundamentals, based upon what must be ignored to maintain the partnership.
Fundamentalists are rife with easy-believism and methods that encourage it, cause it, and lead to it.
Even if I am a fundamentalist by definition(Fundamentalists typically say I'm not one and evangelicals say I am one, but the latter as a pejorative only), it still looks like a movement that encourages the ignoring of most doctrine and practice for a larger coalition. If that is wrong, I'd be glad to be shown it.
Thanks.
Brother Bobby, thank you for the kind offer, but the Lord has blessed me with a good job, and there are many missionaries who need your help far more than I do. In the spirit of Galatians 6:5, I should buy this myself.
The only delay is simply not wanting to waste the Lord's money on expensive trans-Atlantic shipping when my daughters make the trip frequently enough. And since I'm way behind on books I need to read, I've not felt any urgency on it.
But thank you again, I really appreciate it.
In Him
Jon
Bauder in The Spectrum of Evangelicalism, in his response to Mohler:
-------
...a legitimate fundamentalism virtually require some calculus of doctrines and of levels of fellowship. To state that some doctrines are fundamental is automatically to recognize that others are not. If anything, many fundamentalists (including me) would want to add a few additional levels of reckoning for both doctrinal importance and for fellowship relationships.
-------
I would say the issues you mentioned, Kent, would be what Bauder refers to as "a few additional levels of reckoning." I'm not sure what else to say, because I have alway understood Bauder and Doran to recognize that while they are Fundamentalists, they are also more than that. Can you elaborate further (maybe with a citation to help me understand what you refer to from them)?
Brother Brandenburg,
I have so little time and so much to be said...please bear with my short comments and maybe our Sovereign Lord will allow more at another time.
--Your humble teachableness is refreshing. Please know have no delusions about us all finding complete agreement this side of heaven, but the pursuit of authentic understanding is a blessing.
--I suggest a charitable read of Bauder's chapter may help. He admittedly does not approach the subject from the direction we are used to hearing it from our pulpits, but he does explain well his position. Too many have failed to follow the argument all the way through and therefore they make assumptions about the conclusion -- this is an problem for both sides on this one. Note: You do not believe one aught to separate over everything (ie pews color). You do not demand complete uniformity of interpretation of every passage of Scripture. The "everthingist" label is a description of a spectrum. you do fall further down the line (closer to an everythingist than Bauder). This is the same as saying you put more things in the bucket to be separted over than some would. But a true fundamentalist understands that there are certain doctrines that are the Gospel and they must be defended and separated over (those that deny them are not brothers and we have nothing spiritually in common). There are other things that directly affect the Gospel allowing for the possibility for authentic conversion, but the net affect is a distortion of the Gospel message --again separation is necessary (ie 1 Tim 6:1-5). There are other things that may allow us to have blessed personal fellowship over the core of the Gospel (which is a BIG deal to glory in even with brothers I cannot agree with in other areas), but make cooperation in the church impractical or impossible (ie pedobaptism, Calvinism, certain worship choices). This is a produces natural separation which we should accept and not fake unity where there is none--even though we may be in agreement on the Gospel (even a host of other things).
Lastly, when we get past the hard line of the Gospel the rest becomes less definite. Each person/pastor/church will and should struggle through to what extent they must/cannot fellowship (although some things should be obvious). We aught to be drawn to unify with those that have the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:3, Philippians 2:1ff), but we are driven to separation (withdrawal) by disagreement (Amos 3:3) in doctrine (Romans 16:15) and practice (2 Thessalonians 3), but only to the extent necessary. I believe a biblical Christian does not seek to separate, he is forced to. He wants to unify where possible, but he loves God more than he loves unity and so he does separate from other believers in allegiance to God. Again, if one does not get the Gospel right there can be no spiritual fellowship whatsoever.
In my understanding, brother, you are a fundamentalist. You separate over the Gospel. Good fundamentalists will limit fellowship (a form of separation) over more than the Gospel. Which you also do. You may separate over more things than other fundamentalist, but that does not make you not one--it may make you more than one (say like, Fundamentalist Baptist, or Fundamentalist KJV-only, or Fundamentalist Conservative). The thing that many are concerned with is for the Fundamentalist Baptist to say that the Fundamentalist Presbyterian is not a Fundamentalist because he is not a Baptist. The label "Fundamentalist" is admittedly broad. I trust it is clear that just because someone is a fundamentalist does not mean we can or should have public church fellowship with them. There is more to the commands of scripture about unity/separation/fellowship than Gospel fundamentals.
There is more to be said , but I am out of time.
For His glory alone!
Christian Markle
Hey Kent, thanks for all those answers. I think I'm getting closer to a radar lock on your position. But here's a question I should have asked earlier:
Is your church confessional? By that I mean, is there anything at all that someone has to affirm to join the church?
And then a follow-up on the women voting issue: Do you think the Bible teaches that women shouldn't vote? I understand it doesn't say that in so many words, but am I wrong in assuming that you practice it because you understand that it's the appropriate application of accurate exegesis?
Christian and Greg,
I'm going to have to write an entire other post about this, but it has certainly been worth the interaction to me. I can say that I am still unsure that you are correct, and it may not matter, since being or not being a fundamentalist isn't akin to obeying or not obeying the Bible. That won't mean that the next post, whenever it comes, will be my last word on this, but perhaps the next iteration of a discussion. I might read some things in the mean time.
Ben: Is your church confessional? By that I mean, is there anything at all that someone has to affirm to join the church?
Kent: People join our church based on the terms of the doctrinal statement, that is that they have read the statement and know what it is. That doesn't mean that they agree, but they know they can't cause division over it. That includes the constitution, which explains church discipline.
Ben: And then a follow-up on the women voting issue: Do you think the Bible teaches that women shouldn't vote?
In a church. I think that is the best way to apply the passages, and it is how we do. But the point is women not having authority. That's what we separate over. I think most churches violate the teaching of scripture on this, because of the lack of the safeguard of not having a woman vote. Women participate in our church business, because we get the agenda out (consititutionally) ahead of the meeting, so the woman can ask about it to her husband or some other authority.
Elections. It would be best if women didn't vote, but since they do, when the woman doesn't vote the same as her husband, including just not voting, she partially or fully disenfranchises his authority.
Ben: I understand it doesn't say that in so many words, but am I wrong in assuming that you practice it because you understand that it's the appropriate application of accurate exegesis?
Kent: We practice it because it is more wise. If women don't have authority, why give them a forum in which they could usurp? If we're trying to avoid usurpation, we shouldn't tempt women to usurp.
I am at the GARBC Annual Conference at the moment. Bauder delivered a message last night that would be worth listening to. He makes some comments about fellowship near the beginning of the message that seem pertinent to the conversation we have been having here about the need for agreement (and room for disagreement) in the context of fellowship. It will be here when it becomes available...
"Elections. It would be best if women didn't vote, but since they do, when the woman doesn't vote the same as her husband, including just not voting, she partially or fully disenfranchises his authority"
Well said and consistent exegesis of scriptural principles that apply to women within the body of Christ.
"Kent: We practice it because it is more wise. If women don't have authority, why give them a forum in which they could usurp? If we're trying to avoid usurpation, we shouldn't tempt women to usurp."
Well said and consistent exegesis of scriptural principles that apply to women within the body of Christ.
Kent, you wrote:
"People join our church based on the terms of the doctrinal statement, that is that they have read the statement and know what it is. That doesn't mean that they agree, but they know they can't cause division over it. That includes the constitution, which explains church discipline."
Can that really be true? Are you really saying that a person wouldn't even have to affirm the foundational elements of the gospel—things like the deity of Christ, his substitutionary death, and the resurrection? Surely people who join your church would need to believe those things, right?
Ben,
I'm sorry. I was assuming that. Everyone gives a testimony that joins, very thorough interview. Sorry about that. I thought you were just asking about the doctrinal statement. A person doesn't have to understand eschatology shortly after salvation and baptism in order to join the church. I was talking minimum threshold here.
Ok, great. What about believers' baptism? Could a non-Baptist join your church if he agreed not to be divisive about it?
And by the way, I may have misread you a moment ago. When you say everyone gives a testimony and you interview them, are you just asking for their story of how they heard, understood, and responded to the gospel? Or are you searching out whether they can articulate and affirm pivotal theological content of the gospel?
Ben,
I was misunderstanding what you wanted to know, when you asked if we were confessional. A person doesn't have to agree that he believes every part of our doctrinal statement, but he joins on those terms, that is, he knows what the beliefs are and he won't cause division over them. He gives a thorough testimony. He must be scripturally baptized, which for us includes recipient (believer), mode (immersion), and authority (church). We would not recognize the baptism of a non-Baptist, and we wouldn't accept every Baptist baptism. There is no particular line drawn to a rejection of a Baptist baptism, but it is case by case.
We are listening to a conversion testimony to be sure that it is a true conversion, which means that they understand the gospel. We are just making sure that they are saved. That are essentials for a true conversion (and non-essentials). I hope this answered that.
I am curious as to where this all might be heading.
"And by the way, I may have misread you a moment ago. When you say everyone gives a testimony and you interview them, are you just asking for their story of how they heard, understood, and responded to the gospel? Or are you searching out whether they can articulate and affirm pivotal theological content of the gospel?"
Really?? Do you actually think that these kinds of "theological" questions would be relevant to individuals getting saved in Africa and becoming part of the church? How do you apply that to Christians in Africa who have no more than an elementary education and have never read a bible because they cannot get one?
You need to consider the "simplicity which is in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3)" rather than some intellectual assention or some specific articulation of truths by those who "desire occasion" to glory in the flesh.
A spiritual man can discern the SIMPLICITY which is IN CHRIST by asking very simple questions in examination of any converts to determine a resonableness of their belief and genuine faith in the gospel.
When coming together with other members of the body of Christ within the church, time is required to teach, admonish and train them in the way that they ought to go.
I understand why we must go at lengths in this Godless nation that has perverted the ways of the Lord, to divide and seperate because the "unity of the faith" in love and desire to obey the scriptures (the King James Bible) has truly "fallen in the streets"
Kent, regarding the baptism issue, my question was particularly about what the person believes about baptism, rather than the nature and mode of their baptism.
As an example, consider a person who's converted and baptized in a Baptist church, whose baptism you would recognize. But then subsequently, that person reads some paedobaptist stuff and switches his position. But he moves to your town and can't find a paedobaptist church that's faithful to the gospel, so he wants to join your church. He's convinced paedobaptism is the biblical position, but he'll happily avoid any division over the matter.
Do you let him join?
Dear Anonymous,
Yes, I actually do believe that people in Africa and everywhere else in the universe do need to understand and believe the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, and his resurrection in order to be converted. I'm certainly not suggesting that they possess a comprehensive understanding of those doctrines—as if any of us ever could in this age.
Kent, would you disagree with me on that?
Ben,
CS Lewis believed in the ransom model of atonement, no? Just my little devil's advocacy. :)
Bro. B., I think there may be some semantic error in what you're calling doctrine and practice. I know you kind of touched on it already, but this head covering thing . . . Churches that REQUIRE headcovering don't just practice a stricter way. They require the stricter practice and say to not do it is sin. That's a different practice you don't have unity on. I'm not getting the fallback to separating over male headship.
Sure they aren't sinning by wearing head coverings, but would you say they are sinning by requiring it and saying if you don't do it you are sinning against God?
I don't want to cause division between you and those of that ilk with whom you fellowship, but I don'tt think I can drive down to the issue without going here.
Ben,
I'll answer the question, but I think I see where we're headed now, but I could be wrong. If we separate over belief and practice, then that should be cut and dry, they believe different, they practice different, we separate. Our view of ecclesiastical separation is that we don't cooperate or partner for common ministry -- we don't serve together, do Christian work together. There isn't much that is. Missions. Must be a man who would reproduce our church doctrine and practice. A church where I preach or someone from another church, who we have preach. Might not be everywhere where we're at exactly but moving in the right direction. That's about it. I only preach at churches where I'm in fellowship. I only have men preach whom I believe fellowship with us.
This particular paedobaptist could not join our church. I don't see a case where one could. There would be a lot that would go into this, but a lot of it has to do with the explanation you've given. We would encourage him to meet with us, if he thinks there is no other place preaching a true gospel where he can be a part. If he was a member, he would cause division, we would judge, so we wouldn't let him join. His paedobaptism is equally bad to not joining our church, so I don't think we're causing him a problem.
I say yes to your question to anonymous. When I think of simplicity, I don't think of bringing the King James Version to a non-English country.
D4,
That person who believes it is a sin to wear headcoverings, wants to join our non-headcovering church, the church that he believes is perpetually sinning. What are the chances here. I've said that the line drawn is "division," because Romans 16:17-18, among other places. People need to grow. If everyone was exactly at the same belief and practice, there would be no growth. They've got to get there. So if someone is not causing division, then they are saying that they are prepared to go where we are. This is a person, like Ben was talking about, can't find anywhere else to go, so we allow him to join with the "no division" line. We don't think a headcovering is a sin, so what are we violating? A person might think it is a sin to eat meat offered unto idols. He wasn't disciplined from the church at Corinth.
You're saying, it seems, that we must separate from someone who practices something that we don't think is wrong. It might be that we can't fellowship with them, but not because their women wear headcoverings.
That is not a problem for our doctrine or practice, but if they think it is sin, it really is on them. If they don't separate over that, that's their practice. It's their church. I've brought this up already about who draws the lines. Our church draws the line for our church.
You'll need to explain a little more, because I'm still not getting you.
I don't think this is that hard to understand. I think people like yourself want it to be hard and difficult. We unify around the teachings and practices of the Bible. We separate over the teachings and practices of the Bible. If you can find what you think is one gotcha situation, then you are not seeing the way this works out in the real world, according to the Bible. But I appreciate your concern, if it is in fact concern.
For anyone and everyone,
Jesus didn't qualify what you could and couldn't discipline someone for. The discipline passages in the epistles don't qualify it. It seems that any biblical teaching could be an issue for discipline.
So you've got the people who do that, what Jesus and the epistles teach.
Then you've got those who choose to separate on what they deem to be serious. Not everything that the Bible teaches. And then usually I notice that they allow for wrong doctrine and practice, because they only have to be serious about the gospel. And they're not even always serious about that.
So you've got the first option and the second option. I realize most people take option two, the disobedient to Jesus and the epistles one, the totally subjective one. Some of these use the inconsistency of option 1 as a consideration. Not every separation or discipline is at the same speed. Some people get away with it longer. This is purposefully complicating 1, the one taught by the Bible, to reach for 2, which is not taught in the Bible. Living by faith is living by the Bible, so 2 can't be the choice to please God. You've got to struggle through the possible or potential inconsistencies of 1.
I don't want it to be hard. I want to nail down my understanding, and just can't seem to get all the way there.
And I'm talking about your potential cooperation with another church in this scenario.
A given church requires head coverings for women in worship and teaches that not wearing one to worship is sin. Is that church sinning by doing so? Could you do cooperative ministry (like WoT) with such a church/its leaders?
D4,
There may be no other situations like the one you're describing and maybe one doesn't exist either. There is a guy that lives a distance away, regular reader here, that comments about the headcovering teaching here a lot. He doesn't agree with us, but he doesn't discipline people from his group that don't practice it either. I said to him that I would have no problem with his women wearing headcoverings at our church. It's not a sin to us. If he says it is a sin, and he still fellowships with us, I think, you are saying I need to separate from him for sinning. But I don't think he's sinning. He thinks he's sinning. We don't separate from people who think they are sinning that we don't think are sinning. Yet, I know of no situations like this, because even with this man, who comments here, that hasn't come up. He wants to persuade me that he's right. I'm fine with his practicing that way, that he even cares. Most people seem to ignore 1 Cor 11. How does your church practice it? Ironically, Daniel Wallace takes the same position as we do, but then doesn't practice it. That reminds me of the fundamentalist conversation.
I don't think someone can be wrong for using headcoverings. The passage does teach that. I don't think it's how we practice that teaching today. He's going to have to determine whether he can fellowship with me, but not vice versa. I can't wrap my brain around a point that you might be making....seriously.
What I don't get is how that things that people discipline others out of their church for, can be ignored in fellowship with other churches.
Mark Dever talks about that. He says Ligon Duncan is sinning with paedobaptism. He says that they would not allow a paedobaptist in their church (I'm pretty sure he said that, and I wrote about it a few years ago), but that doesn't affect how he treats Ligon Duncan. Now that I can't wrap my brain around. Could you seriously help me with that one?
That last example is reminding me of my discussion with Ben. I didn't think of it until after I started typing that.
Kent, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about what the person/church thinks he they would be doing. I'm talking about an hypothetical person who would teach that it must be the headcovering and any others not implementing the headcovering are sinning. If you don't want to address that instance, you don't have to.
As for what our church does, we pretty much ignore it (although it has been preached on long ago-I think our unspoken official position is that women are obedient with long hair, but don't hold me to that). That's an admission, btw, not a statement of delight.
As for Dever, I can't answer or explain for him. I can say I would not be as outraged if certain paedobaptists filled our pulpit as I might if some non-paedobaptists filled our pulpit.
As for the larger point of your OP, I would probably lean toward your perspective more than Ben does, but I'm persuaded that robust and strict confessionalism (OPC or Reformed Baptist style) is the way to go. I may even engage your post at my own blog, if I can find the time. I do have a couple differences I'd point out then.
"Yes, I actually do believe that people in Africa and everywhere else in the universe do need to understand and believe the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, and his resurrection in order to be converted"
You seem to miss the obvious. That the Lord Jesus Christ as God died for our sins (need to tell them about sins and repentance from them [Acts 20:21]) and that he died (For the wages of sin is death...) and that he rose again (... but the gift of God is eternal life) from the dead that you might freely have life because he is the resurrection and the life. You can simply say those truths above in different ways and if the Spirit of God leads them to a true heart of repentance and faith in the Christ Jesus the Lord of the bible for salvation, then they are "simply" saved.
You need not mention or explain "the deity of Christ" or "substitutionary atonement" as some theological point but rather you tell them boldly with all confidence the truths above.
Those are the fundamentals for a BABE in Christ, therefore "fundamentalism" as I have known it in many IFB churches has never taken it to higher biblical heights as it ought to have been. I believe that is part of Kent's argument. And after 30 years many "fundamentalists" have never grown much past this, which of course is sad!!
I started out there 30+ years ago and left it many years back still bragging about "the fundamentals". The scriptures and the truths within them are MUCH MORE than that, for many never desire to DIE so that they might live!
Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death...
I can't speak for D4, but I see his point something like this:
1. Person A teaches that not wearing head coverings is a sin.
2. You don't believe that not wearing head coverings is a sin.
3. So from your perspective, at least, Person A is at a minimum, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," but (though you may not agree), it could also be seen as adding to the Word of God by commanding what God has not commanded.
4. The results in point 3 constitute differences that are in contradiction to Bible teachings and *should* (from how we understand what you are saying) thus require separation.
5. However, you don't separate from Person A based on what he is teaching, even though you believe he probably should separate from you.
6. Therefore, it would appear that you are violating your own teaching that all violations of scriptural command affecting doctrine and practice should require separation.
Yes, this requires drawing some conclusions, but isn't that the case with secondary separation?
1. Person A teaches something that Person B and Person C believe is in contradiction to scripture.
2. Person C separates from Person A, but Person B does not separate from Person A.
3. Person C separates from person B based on lack of obedience to commands to separate from Person A, even though Person B may also agree with the doctrine of separation but does not agree that what Person A is doing requires it.
I realize you probably think this is another attempt to bring up inconsistencies so that we can use that to justify our own, since you have said so in the past, but that is not what this is about. This is a hypothetical situation that can be used to flesh out how your teachings can work in actual practice. I.e., we want to understand, and your answers on this question *seem* inconsistent, even if you don't believe that they are.
I'm not a fundamentalist nor a Baptist. And a lot posted in hear makes me so glad that I'm not. Women who vote differently could see something that her husband doesn't see. Yes the Bible says for wives to submit to their husbands, but the Bible also says submit one to another, includes husbands submitting to wives.
The reason I say that is to make this point: women are not to sit back and just simply obey their husbands. She is not his daughter. Wife disagreeing with husband is not the same as usurping.
Kent, I appreciate your patience in answering so many questions. I was intrigued by your initial post, particularly these assertions:
The only consistent position to take is to separate over every doctrine and practice of the Bible. . . . and . . .
To keep the doctrines and practices of the Bible, which are plain, we have to separate over all of it.
That really is the obvious, consistent position. Once someone concedes that not every doctrinal or practical disagreement necessitates complete separation, he has to start trying to apply wisdom to exercise judgment calls. Incalculable factors enter the equation in just about every imaginable circumstance. Needless to say, it's messy.
I think you're right that fundamentalists are stuck in that mess. Lots of evangelicals too—except for those who won't separate over anything. Those two groups just draw lines in different places, often for different reasons.
But here's the thing. I think you're in that mess too. You demand agreement on some doctrines prior to church membership, but not others. You'll fellowship with other churches or pastors who don't practice separation the way you do—even if that difference is simply the fact that they won't separate with you over every doctrine and practice in the Bible when their doctrine and practice is more restrictive than yours.
Now, you offer qualifications of your practice of separation—offering leniency for new believers or for disagreements that won't cause division. I'm really not saying those are bad qualifications. I'm simply suggesting that they're incompatible with your own position. It's odd to me that you claim that the Bible demands such a hard-line position on separation, but then you soften that position when it seems reasonable. Maybe it is reasonable, but on whose authority do you introduce the exceptions?
Dave Barnhart,
I'm going to be reading your comment and commenting hopefully at some point. You probably have a lot of other things to do, but I want to relook at that, because you thought D4 was making a legitimate point with his headcovering situation, and I've got to read yours (haven't read it word for word, brief skim). And yours looks like it will require thinking. :-D
Hi Ben,
Thanks for commenting. It seems like maybe that was a conclusion to questions, etc. I wasn't sure. I can honestly say that I don't understand you, not because I don't want to -- I just don't. I could explain why I say this, and I would if you wanted to hear, but I wouldn't offer it without your wanting that.
Another thing before I answer your comment...did you see this months edition of Tabletalk, the R.C.Sproul publication?
Romans 7 says the Christian life is messy, but that doesn't mean that we go ahead and pick and choose what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. There must be a path to keep all of it. I think what seems messy though is the "be patient with all men." You've got to determine who is who -- weak, feebleminded, unruly -- and some creep in unawares. Christian growth must come. But what is our position, what is it that we teach? We walk by faith. Faith is what pleases him and that is according to the Word of God. The king in Israel had to read it, copy it, and put it all into practice.
When you capitulate immediately to "we're not going to do it all, pick and choose what will work easiest for us," that isn't faith. His yoke is easy, His burden is light. We should assume that what He says, He enables.
We've got to start with, what can we defend with scripture? What does the Bible say? Don't we, Ben? And God knows your heart if that's what you are taking the direction to do. Being patient doesn't mean "not doing."
Is deciding what doctrine and practice you're not going to keep actually wisdom? Is that what we're praying for? I've thought it was the right application of the passage, not what passage is going to be abdicated.
Church membership at the root level is saved and baptized, follow Christ. Someone doesn't have to know all the doctrine or even practicing all of it before he joins. That alone is "messy," because some of those joiners aren't even saved, and one has to determine that, and a whole lot of the NT is there for that, but we don't just abandon any of it.
This position considers it all, like scripture says everywhere. Live by every word.
You ask about particular doctrines and I don't know which ones bother you. I think the last one, not scrolling up, was paedobaptism. But you gave a very specific situation, someone who was not paedobaptist, turned paedobaptist, and I knew all about that. This is not just being a paedobaptist. If someone grew up paedobaptist and wanted to join (true conversion and baptized by immersion into our church) because we taught a true gospel and wouldn't cause disunity, teach another doctrine than our church, he would probably be able to join. This is not disregarding doctrine. This is letting someone grow, giving that opportunity. You could have a hyperdispensationalist who thinks that baptism is Old Testament. It is a case by case scenario in these situations, but we're not ignoring anything, we're not giving up any doctrine. We're considering passages that talk about division -- they're in there for a reason. But this is not sheer abdication, which is an unacceptable messiness. Just because something is messy doesn't mean all messy is acceptable. You don't get to make your own mess out of things, I'm saying. "Since it's a mess, either mode of baptism, fine, infant or believer, fine, complementarianism or egalitarianism, fine." And then you get these faux arguments that believing and practicing everything diminishes the gospel or that the person who does separate over all the doctrine and practice of the Bible is a heretic. I hear those, and those are made up out of whole cloth. And I don't mean this personal at all. I love those guys.
Perhaps on the exceptions you can give me the specific examples. That would help me. I'm not avoiding.
Thanks Ben!
Post a Comment