Category: Separation/Unity

Primary Separation, Secondary Separation, Ecclesiastical Separation, oh, and Unity

More Phil Johnson on Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Just wanted to briefly point my readers’ attention to an interesting thread over at Sharper Iron, where Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs) continues his criticism of fundamentalism. His main point continues to be that fundamentalists demand separation from anyone outside of their movement. Why? Well, because they are not fundamentalists (inside their movement), of course. Such an all-or-nothing approach is what Phil (with myself and many others) finds so troubling.

I blogged about Phil Johnson’s presentation on fundamentalism at the 2005 Shepherd’s Conference (presented by John MacArthur’s church) here. And I added my own thoughts about his follow up presentation for the 2006 Conference here. The discussion going on right now over at Sharper Iron, is in a sense a continuation of this prolonged interaction between Phil Johnson and the best side of fundamentalism. This whole interaction is very helpful in understanding the shortfalls of fundamentalism’s views of separation (and secondary separation), in my opinion. It is an occasion for discussing the “why’s” of separation, not merely the “how to’s”. And thus, such a discussion is profitable no matter on which side one ultimately ends up. So, go ahead and lend Phil Johnson your ear, once again!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Together for the Gospel: A Call for Unity and Doctrinal Purity

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

April 26-28, 2006 may well be remembered as an historic occasion. This was the first Together for the Gospel conference. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and C.J. Mahaney and included guest speakers R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and John MacArthur. But the conference was not about great men, it was about a greater message–the Gospel! The conference, attended by over 2800 people (mostly pastors) had a rare concern for both unity and doctrinal purity. It attempted to address the problems of denominational partisanship on the one hand and doctrinal paltriness on the other. Together for the Gospel was just that, a call for our unity to be in the most important and absolutely defining truths which are fundamental to the Gospel. True unity only exists around the true Gospel, and the true Gospel demands a true unity.

I am thrilled at how this conference exalts the Gospel as the true source of unity. As a former fundamentalist, I was inculcated with a knee-jerk reaction against virtually any call for unity. Why? Unity is most often trumpeted to the detriment of doctrinal purity. This does not have to be, but often is. My friend Nathan Pitchford has written an excellent article detailing how unity and doctrinal purity are not in opposition with one another at all, I recommend it highly.

In my own opinion the fundamentalist solution to the problem of rampant ecumenism has its own glaring problems. In almost every sector of fundamentalism, to one degree or another, unity is sought in each and every doctrinal (and often practical) position. The result is minor doctrines and personal interpretations and preferences have been exalted to a level greater than the doctrinal truths essential to the Gospel itself! Rather than prizing the actual unity we have as fellow believer-partakers in our Divine Lord Jesus Christ’s glorious provision for our sins as an altogether adequate basis for a mutual fellowship and unity which welcomes each other in spite of our differing positions on comparatively minor points, the minor points we disagree define us as we esteem them of greater importance than our commonality in the Gospel. Our own applications of separation, views on baptism, and beliefs about the finer points of eschatology and ecclesiology and other doctrines become stumblingblocks to the real unity of the faith the One True Gospel calls us to, and the world is robbed of a clear witness to the Oneness of Christ and the Father, and of Christ and His Church, and ultimately God is denied a unified voice that glorifies His name (Eph. 4:3,13, Jn. 17:20-21, Rom. 15:5-7).

I did not have the joy of attending the conference, but I have been blessed by others descriptions of it in the blogworld. Let me share the blessing by sharing some of the pertinent links below.

CONFERENCE LINKS:

I hope and pray this conference has a lasting and tremendous impact for the cause of Christ and His Church.

Pictures taken from Together For the Gospel’s Picture Pool.

The List

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Take a ride on the Big Orange Truck!

A blogging friend of mine has posted his LIST of problems with the IFBx wing of fundamentalism. It is really good so I want to reproduce it here. But be sure to check out his blog–it is devoted to many of the same topics as mine. It is called the Big Orange Truck. Why? Check out this post and it will all make sense!

After some introductory comments and disclaimers, he presents the list which I reproduce here verbatim:

1. Weak theology – I should probably stop here because this problem has caused all of the following. Many of my IFB college courses were a joke. There were no systematic theology classes offered. The one Bible doctrines class that was offered was shallow, weak, and incomprehensive. Classes on specific Books of the Bible were basically Sunday school lessons for which I paid tuition.

A fellow alumnus once told me that our college concentrated more on methodology than theology, and that graduates were expected to learn theology later on their own. This is true, and this is what I did (and am still doing). I learned that my methodology was challenged by biblical theology. One or the other has to change, and I am finding myself leaving much of the methodology that was inculcated at my alma mater.

2. Shallow Preaching – Or I could say “unbiblical” preaching. Much of the preaching I’ve heard was shallow and unbiblical. The text was used as a launch pad into the preacher’s “private interpretation”. Most sermons were a hodge-podge of motivational speaking, psycho-babble, Bible quotations, and lots of volume. I call these kind of preachers “fire-breathing ear ticklers”. Expository preaching was not only avoided, it was criticized. Bible texts became contortionists in order to fit into a sermon. A sermon was considered good based on the delivery and not its substance. This is how preaching was practiced, and this is how I was taught.

3. Lack of unity – A better way to say it may be “reversed separation.” Many IFB preachers separate, fight, and feud for stupid and silly reasons. Unity is done under the banner of surface issues, but separation is rarely practiced over real doctrinal issues.

Separation is good, and often biblically required. The problem I see is that separation is reversed…IFB preachers often separate when they should unite, and they unite when they should be separating. As a result, IFB circles are full of contention, division, back stabbing, gossip, and one-upmanship.

4. Numbers Obsession – Bigness is everything. Size really does matter. Numbers are all important. Everything is done for more numbers…more “salvations”, more baptisms, more in attendance, more anything and everything.

This numbers obsession is so bad, many preachers, churches, and colleges “manufacture” results, or just flat out lie, in order to be top dog. More on this later.

5. Sloppy soul winning & Easy prayerism – This is a result of bad theology and the numbers obsession. Like a domino effect, it all begins with bad theology.

The soul winning method I was taught concentrated on manipulation, and the purpose of the process was to get somebody to say a prayer. I’ve seen many soul winners “lead someone to the Lord” in less than 5 minutes. Soul winning was often done with bravado and complete carelessness in regard to a “convert’s” genuine conversion.

6. Celebrityism – This is an especially egregious problem in IFBx circles. Pastors of really large churches achieve the coveted celebrity status. They are the ones that preach at all the conferences. They are the ones that steer the doctrine and methodology of their followers. They are the ones that define the different camps within Baptist fundamentalism.

It is natural for good pastors who have successful ministries to have influence in his circle of brethren. Being a megachurch pastor is not wrong. Great pastors will always influence present and future generations. It becomes “celebrityism” when only the opinions of the celebs are respected, and anything done in contradiction to the opinion of an IFB celeb is considered as heresy. Any critic of a celeb is considered an apostate. This naturally leads to cultism. I am a great admirer of Spurgeon, but even Spurgeon was human and prone to mistakes, and I do not consider him the final authority on anything. I just greatly value his knowledge and skill.

Celebrityism is not just an attitude in a megachurch pastor, it is the atmosphere in IFBx culture. Unless you are a big shot, you basically don’t matter. Your voice is silent. Your ministry is trivial, and if you happen to differ from a celeb on anything, then you are wrong simply because your church isn’t big enough to make you right. Whenever there are contradicting opinions, the guy with the biggest church is always right.

For what it’s worth, this is my list.

It’s helping me keep it ‘tween the ditches, and the greasy side down.

I think that list sums up some of the important problems rampant in some secters of fundamentalism today. Be sure to read his whole post here, too. You will see that Joe is not out to destroy fundamentalism or anything. He is seriously speaking out for change.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Clarifying My Critique of Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Recently, Jeff Voegtlin (Vice President of Fairhaven Baptist College, and an assistant pastor at Fairhaven Baptist Church) posted a clarification on his blog as to his view regarding my departure from fundamentalism. He had made one of the first comments on my blog in response to “My Story and Critique of Fundamentalism”, and apparently someone read a little too much into that comment. An email exchange ensued to see what exactly Jeff’s take on my story really was. Jeff posted an edited version of that exchange (as well as linking to my story) to make it clear that he does not support my positions.

Well, since Jeff’s post will introduce my departure from fundamentalism to his readers, I decided to comment on his blog. I wanted to clarify what my position exactly is concerning Fairhaven and fundamentalism in general. In doing so, I actually provided a more succinct critique of fundamentalism than my long biographical letter. So I thought posting this response to Jeff’s blog post would be beneficial to my readers as well. [I will link to this briefer version of my critique of fundamentalism in my original critique to let others opt for the smaller version if they desire.] So here is my response in full.

Pastor Jeff,I would like to say a few things and clarify my point of view for those now introduced to my departure from fundamentalism, if I may. (This will enable them not to have to read my long letter in order to understand my position.)

First, I want to stress that I thank God for you and your ministry. I learned much from you, and treasure the years I spent on your bus route. You, more than any other staff member at Fairhaven, had a tremendous impact on my life. Your example encourages me to think, learn, study, trust, and selflessly serve. There are few people who are as busy and devoted in God’s service as you. And through it all, you remain serious yet joyful. I want to emulate your example.

Second, let me add, that I also am grateful for my time at Fairhaven. I have no cause to question the seriousness or genuineness of any of those who have taught me during my years there. They are men (and women) of God who desire to please Him with all their heart. I have great respect for Dr. Voegtlin and his attempt to avoid being just another fundamentalist “big shot”. He humbly serves God with all his heart, and has left me an example of what sincere faith in God can accomplish. During my time at Fairhaven I was impressed with how the college was striving to improve and grow to be an even better place for education. I am thankful for the friends I had and the personal interaction with teachers (not to mention the many valuable things I learned from my classes). I also am glad the college stressed our involvement in the various ministries of the church.

Third, in light of this perspective, why have I abandoned fundamentalism? I explained that in my letter, which you have linked to in this post. But let me summarize (and clarify) that letter a bit. I have come to disagree with some of the interpretations of Fairhaven on certain issues. These issues include the KJV-only issue, local-church only ecclesiology, their position on Calvinism, their categorical rejection of pants on women and modern/contemporary music styles, their fundamentalist view of separation, and their stance on dispensationalism (and pre-trib. rapture). I also have come to see certain emphases of fundamentalism as being potentially very dangerous, such as the ease with which a performance-based Christianity (legalistic sanctification) finds root (both consciously and unconsciously) in the structures set up by fundamentalism, the tendency toward an extreme view of pastoral authority accompanied (usually) by a rejection of the Biblical (I believe) position of rule by a plurality of elders, a tendency toward emphasizing stylistic elements of preaching more than a careful and studious treatment of Scripture (which doubtless accompanies an avoidance of real scholarship as somehow antithetical to spirituality), and the tendency toward a hair-trigger approach to separation (looking for reasons to separate from others rather than for trying to unify with other believers) which results in real schisms and unnecessary divisions in the universal body of Christ (this can tend to a self-righteous, holier-than-thou view of other non-fundamentalist Christians which is extremely unChristian and unhealthy). Since there is a great degree of autonomy promoted within fundamentalism (which is not necessarily wrong) there exist many different forms/versions (or camps) of fundamentalism. My criticisms apply less to some groups than others. I do view Fairhaven as an example of extreme fundamentalism, yet only in this sense: there is now a large group of fundamentalists who agree that making such matters as the use of the KJV Bible only, pants on women, and a rejection of Calvinism a test of fellowship is wrong and that groups who do so are extreme examples of fundamentalism. [This sphere of fundamentalism is represented by Central Baptist Theological Seminary/Fourth Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN; Bob Jones University; Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary/Inter-city Baptist Church of Allen Park, MI; Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary/Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA; and also SharperIron.Com.] This group within fundamentalism sees such positions as minor differences which should not separate believers. They understandably see these positions as being held most often by groups which even Fairhaven would consider extreme (Hyles Anderson College/First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN; Texas Baptist College/Longview Baptist Temple of Longview, TX; the views of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger; etc.). I would consider Fairhaven a “modified extreme” or a “reasoned extreme” version of fundamentalism. This assessment has less to do with the practice of Fairhaven and more to do with the beliefs held by Fairhaven. I would say that all Independent Fundamental Baptists have inherited structures and procedures which were used by the extreme versions of Fundamentalism, and these structures have a negative impact to a varying degree on the practice and positions of every example of fundamentalism.

Fourth, let me state the obvious: I may be wrong. Further, I am not an authority on this issue. I have made personal conclusions based on my (short) lifetime within fundamentalism and have found such things to be true. I have come across many others who are wiser than I am who say the same things (some are even within fundamentalism still), though. I do not want to posit myself as the Know-It-All. But I understand some will write me off as such (since they know it all!). Nevertheless I feel compelled to speak out against these problems with fundamentalism, since I believe they are serious and have hindered my growth (and others’) in Christ. My blog is an attempt to think through the issues and discuss what I believe concerning fundamentalism, as well as to be a catalyst toward greater unity.

Fifth, I have tried to make it clear that I do not view fundamentalists as enemies [see this clarification post as well as my original reply to your comment to my letter/(story & critque)]. I greatly respect their high view of Scripture and their adherence to the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. I would say I share that belief. I further respect their courageous stand for truth. I too strive to stand for truth (my applying separation differently does not mean I do not believe in and practice separation). I am very encouraged that fundamentalists make the gospel central to all they do and emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone (although some segments of fundamentalism–Fairhaven not being part of them–have abandoned a Biblical doctrine of repentance for an easy believism/1-2-3-repeat-after-me view of salvation). From my perspective I can agree to disagree on the truly minor areas of disagreement I have with fundamentalists and unify around the huge gospel truths and essential/fundamental doctrines of Scripture that we tenaciously hold to in common. Yet, having been on the other side of the fence, I understand that from their perspective I have abandoned the faith, practically. I cannot be associated with or fellowshipped with for fear of my negative influence or in respect to their position on separation. This does not change the fact that I desire to have a greater unity with fundamentalist brethren around the great Name and cause of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, let me say that I was encouraged by your original comment in response to my story/critique. You did not summarily write me off as others have, and rather seemed to welcome criticism of fundamentalism. I took that as your being sincere in trying to pursue the truth for yourself, yet I also understood that for you it most definitely meant you were just trying to ensure your brand of fundamentalism was Biblically rooted and you were interested in how others saw your positions. Your clarification of that comment here is basically what I gathered from your comment. I am encouraged to see you have been thinking about some of the excesses and errors perpetuated by some fundamentalists, and I am glad you are trying to avoid those errors. I also originally understood the tongue-in-cheek nature of your coming “to know the truth also” comment. I took your comment partly as a plea for me to treat fundamentalists with more grace. And that comment and other feedback I received led me to clarify my views and attempt to be sure I was not overstating my case and just simply bad-mouthing a group of people who are sincere in their desire to please God and hold the doctrines the Bible teaches. It ultimately lead to this post, which reflects my desire to glorify God in and through everything on my blog.

Seventh, I want to let you know I did listen to one or more of your sermons, and was impressed (as I usually was with your preaching back in college). I also have read almost everything on your blog. I particularly enjoyed your post about the ditch. I purposely did not comment for a few reasons. I did not want to be seen as aggessively attacking Fairhaven or seeking to gain recruits away from fundamentalism. I wanted to respect your church and ministry and not disrupt it. Also, the circumstances surrounding the correspondence you disclose here made me uncomfortable in commenting on your blog before now. In the future, I probably will not comment much, if at all. And if you request me to not comment at all, I would certainly understand. I do not want or intend to change your blog into a debate forum on fundamentalism.

Finally, let me explain that I disagree with your friend’s interpretation of my story. That is probably obvious to you. I am currently still planning on answering a letter posted by someone else on my blog which gets into specifc discussion of the doctrinal beliefs I hold; but in light of other discussions I have already had, I will probably not continue my correspondence with your friend in question. That discussion has broken down into a he said/she said debate. It is my word against his, and since memories are fallible, I cannot absolutely prove he is trying to destroy my reputation or something. I still hold him in high respect, although that has lessened somewhat from the recent exchanges. If more needs to be said from me, I will let you or your friend ask for it. It is already clear we disagree. It seems pointless to continue marshalling arguments back and forth in a lost cause.

I pray God’s blessing on your family and ministry. Oh, and unfortunately you were right in regards to the length of my writings! 🙂

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Dissonant Views on Music

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I am always interested in discussions concerning the legitimacy of different musical forms for worship. In my opinion the common fundamentalist argument is very weak and lacking in Scriptural support. Recently I blogged on this issue briefly here.

Well lately I have stumbled onto a few interesting discussions on music over at Scott Aniol’s blog. He defends a view that contemporary music (for the most part) is categorically wrong. He does so from a more reasoned (and musically informed) position than the average fundamentalist standpoint. I still disagree with him, however. But I feel that pointing out these discussions will be beneficial and instructive for anyone seriously considering this issue. So here are three discussions worth looking at.

  • Dialogue with Bob Kauflin. This is an interesting evaluation of Bob Kauflin’s new arrangement of music (as well as an added chorus) to William Cowper’s hymn God Moves in a Mysterious Way. Bob Kauflin then added some comments in response to Aniol’s evaluation. The discussion is insightful in that it provides us with a contemporary musician’s actual thoughts in writing a piece of music in contrast to the fundamentalist perception of that same musician’s intent.
  • An Objective Analysis of Three Praise Songs. This discussion really gets to the heart of the issue in exposing the fundamentalist’s position concerning modern praise songs. Note: some of those differing with the “objective analysis” are in fact fundamentalists themselves (not every fundamentalist has an extreme position on music). Again, this discussion is very informative as to the arguments (pro and con) pertinent to this debate on music.
  • United in Worship. This article is actually a dissenting opinion. The blog was kind enough to post an opposing view. The article is very interesting in providing a Biblically informed philosophy of music in worship that does not exclude all contemporary praise songs and etc. out of hand.

Picture was legally taken from here.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7