Category: Separation/Unity

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

Phil Johnson's Second Look at Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

Phil Johnson of Pyromaniac (and now Pyromaniacs) fame caused a furor in the IFB blogosphere through his treatment of Fundamentalism last year at the Shepherd’s Conference held by John MacArthur’s church. Phil is a staff elder there, and his original message was entitled “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism”. I briefly blogged about it here, where you can get the link to the original lengthy (I mean LENGTHY) discussion.

Well, he has done it again! This year’s Shepherd’s Conference featured Phil giving a second part of his critique of Fundamentalism “Dead Right: Part 2”. You can read his whole presentation here compliments of Sharper Iron (the scene of the first blog-war over Phil’s comments).

Let me stress, if you are interested in Independent Fundamental Baptists and if you are currently evaluating their exclusivistic claims whether from inside or outside the fundamentalist bandwagon, you need to read this article. You probably will want to read the discussion that ensues as well. For the benefit of my readers I will reproduce my initial comment on this article, but do not neglect to read at least Phil’s presentation in full, it will highlight many of my concerns with fundamentalism which I mention here and elsewhere in my blog.

I am going to reproduce my entire comment below, but rather than using a blockquote style, I will offset it with horizontal lines. So here goes…

Phil’s 3 Points

I would like to see the discussion focus more on Phil’s 3 points.

  1. IDEA vs. INSTITUTION
  2. FUNDAMENTAL vs. SECONDARY issues
  3. SEPARATION vs. SECTARIANISM

Whether or not Phil wears the badge, he presents a valid critique. Bauder and others within fundamentalism seem to be pointing out these very same issues. Johnson’s critique deserves thought. His claims might prove to be unfounded and baseless, but only if shown to be so through reasoned treatment and engagement. Agree or disagree but bring the arguments to the table. A “head in the sand” approach is both foolish and perilous.

I have actually left the fundamentalist movement/institution but like Phil, cherish the ideas/principles of fundamentalism. So it will not surprise you to find that I agree with his assessment. But as one who has viewed fundamentalism from the inside out (albeit from mostly a moderate “IFBx” variety), Phil’s views resonate with my own personal experience (which encompasses many different camps and varieties of fundamentalists).

Phil’s points 1 and 3 seem to be basically the same point. And it is an extremely important point. Fundamentalism while claiming to be merely an idea and claiming to stand for a Biblical position of separation clearly has become a movement which uses separation as a means to preserve its sectarian identity. This use of separation is subtle and tricky, but it is predominant in all spheres of fundamentalism (in my opinion). Fundamentalism has set itself up as the living expression or embodiment of Biblical Christianity. Since Fundamentalism = Biblical Christianity, to not attatch oneself to or respect the Fundamentalist movement is to denigrate Biblical Christianity. This in turn warrants separation. In short, if you are not part of the movement, then ipso facto you should be separated from by the movement. Phil sees this approach as not merely incorrect but WRONG. Can anyone else see it as prideful and unnecessarily divisive too?

Phil claims he believes in separation, and he lists numerous groups he believes practice separation as good or better than fundamentalists do. I contend that most conservative evangelicals do have a belief in and practice of separation. They obviously do not separate over the same issues as fundamentalists (since they disagree with the weight certain issues possess, such as worship/music style, secondary separation, dress, KJV, etc.) and do not separate in the same amount of time (or at the same point in the process of interaction [a Matt. 18 like interaction]) as fundamentalists do–BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT SEPARATE. Yet fundamentalists often claim that conservative evangelicals (like MacArthur, Phil, Piper, Sproul, etc.) do not practice separation and are therefore worthy of being separated from. In other words, unless you subscribe to the exact fundamentalist variety of separation espoused in one degree or another by the fundamentalist movement, the movement chooses to have no fellowhip or unity with you at all. For most fundamentalists, they do not have the time of day for conservative evangelicals (albeit the interaction with Phil presents a happy exception). Yet in every fundamental/vital doctrinal point in relation to the gospel such conservative evangelicals are more than allies with fundamentalists–they are brothers. The fundamentalist movement is much more charitable to conservative evangelicals of yesteryear, however. But are we really to assume that Spurgeon and other heroes of olden days really would own the extreme version of separatism that fundamentalist’s espouse?

In my reading of the debate on Sharper Iron from last year concerning Phil’s first treatment of Fundamentalism, this issue–the movement vs. the idea/separation vs. sectarianism–seemed to be at the heart of the debate. When Phil and Dr. Doran went back and forth on separation, and when Dr. Doran admitted he had more in common with MacArthur and his church than with many fundamental churches he associated with, the main stumblingblock to Doran’s having fellowship with Phil was this issue. Phil is an outsider. While many reasoned fundamentalists of the Sharper-Iron/BJU variety have conscientously set aside some of the more extreme and less Biblically based elements of fundamentalism, they nevertheless do not bend at this point. If you are not one of us, we CANNOT be seen to fellowship with you OR ELSE. Eyebrows are raised if you are seen to even contemplate such fellowship (with non fundamentalists). Why is this? Is there some verse which says fellowship with fundamentalists only? In my own reading of the threads here at Sharper Iron, I continually run across the sentiment that it is a no-brainer that we should separate from anyone who is not a fundamentalist (since they are obviously not a separatist and probably are a closet neo-evangelical). This “binary thinking” mentality is alive and well in some of the best versions of fundamentalism and it is this issue which Phil and many others decry as WRONG and full of sinful sectarianism.

Phil’s 2nd point deserves attention too. In my perspective, many fundamentalists of the Sharper Iron variety have only reduced the number of essential doctrines (shedding KJV-onlyism, and pants-on-women, etc.) rather than pointing out that some doctrines are more essential than others. Again if someone is not Dispensational or Pre-Trib, or if someone has a different music philosophy, or (in some circles) if one is Calvinist or Arminian, he has denied the faith! Really? Does not Scripture teach that some doctrines are vitally important to the doctrine, and others are less so? Romans 14-15 addresses both teachings and practices. 1 Cor. 15 says the gospel doctrines are “of first importance”. A very common sentiment among fundamentalists is that every doctrine is vitally important and none are non-essential. Yet carried to its logical outcome this view would necessitate separation from every different doctrine (pre-trib vs. post-trib, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Dispenastional deluxe variety A vs. Dispensational variety B, the view that Jesus died on Wed. vs. the view Jesus died on Thur. [or Fri.], etc.). Do we really see that diehard approach to separation in Scripture?

In other words, Phil takes issue with fundamentalism’s practice of separation. He sees it as performed in relation to fundamentalism as a movement or sect and without regard to the relevant weight of different doctrines.

I contend that Fundamentalism may have a good many reasons for limiting their fellowship to fellow fundamentalists. But such reasons are pragmatic not Scriptural. It is always easier to just operate in the mentality of “Us 4 no more”. That way is safe. But Scripture calls us to interact and to be concerned for the body of Christ as a whole. It calls us to have a real visible unity with others. The “unity of the faith”, the “unity of the Spirit”, is to be pursued (Eph. 4:3, 13). We are to welcome one another so that God may be glorified (Rom. 15:5-7).

Let me give a brief case in point. My brother joined Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper is its teaching pastor) soon after graduating from Northland Baptist Bible College. He had great respect for some of the professors at Central Baptist Seminary and hoped to be able to take some Master’s classes there, during his time in Minneapolis. Yet he was denied the opportunity to take classes merely because he was a member at Bethlehem. He would have valued the teaching of some of Central’s profs more than what he could have received by correspondence from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or elsewhere. He absolutely agreed with Central on many core doctrinal truths, but because Bethlehem is not “fundamentalist” (or maybe because they are not die hard cessationist in respect to charismatic gifts–although tongues, etc. are by no means practiced there) he was denied the fellowship, unity, and edification he could have received from them.

To deny fellowship with a church and its people should be a huge, huge thing. Check it out, but the vast majority of the passages on separation in context refer to the denial of clearly essential/fundamental (ie. major) doctrines. To say we cannot fellowship with people because we deem them very sinful to the point of possibly doubting their salvation is big indeed. Yet sadly, this kind of situation is the default and normal position taken by fundamentalists with no more concern than if they were separating from a bunch of Roman Catholic Jesuits.

I have rambled on long enough, but I am interested to see if fundamentalists take the time to consider these points (raised by Phil) and seek to clarify or soften their stance on separation. If the reasonable wing of fundamentalism were to embrace the Biblical stress on unity around the doctrine of the gospel, much good could be realized in many areas of conservative evangelicalism for sure.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

Striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God–Eph. 4:3,13 Rom. 15:5-7

So, what are your thoughts about this presentation by Phil? Feel free to join Sharper Iron and post (as long as you hold to the fundamentals of the faith and agree to their doctrinal statement, etc.), but go ahead and discuss this here as well. Thanks!

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

They are Wrong, We are Right: Worship Wars and Music

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Dan Edelen of Cerulean Sanctum has a great post on music, “Calling a Truce in the Worship Wars”. He has noticed and blogged about the fact that in the worship wars, most are content to condemn everyone else’s music. They are right and the whole world is wrong. But should this be our attitude?

He begins his post as follows:

“Over the last year, one topic has arisen on more blogs than any other: proper worship. The tenor of these posts is typically aimed at how to do worship right, with the writer explaining why his/her token method of worship is THE ONLY KIND THAT WORSHIPS GOD IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. Like so many aspects of the Faith, we’ve turned worship into a tangle of pointing fingers. Rarely do we claim any higher ground than to contend that our higher ground is loftier than someone else’s.”

He goes on to compare the arguments on both sides of the worship war concerning hymns versus modern praise songs. This section is well worth looking at, as he points out some inconsistencies in reasoning–particularly in those who would jump to ban modern worship songs.

He then concludes with these remarks:

“The focus is not on externals, yet so often this is all we can note when we hold our own ways of worshiping up as the only way, while deriding those who worship in ways we don’t understand….Our worship wars are based on cultural trappings more than anything, and that’s too bad because that’s a very narrow slice of reality that we bring to worship. The true worshiper of God is content in all worship environments that are driven by the Holy Spirit. Such a worshiper is equally at home with an a cappella choir, an amplified worship band, a pulse-pounding black gospel group, a classical quartet, or any other musical expression that is fueled by the Holy Spirit….Worshipers with hearts focused on God, worshiping by the Spirit, can sing (and dance) to any kind of music and God will be pleased with their offering….Why do we strain so hard to define what is appropriate? We want to honor God. We want to do the right thing. But the right thing is focusing more on God and less on our methods.”

I encourage you to check out the whole article. It is well worth a short read.

(HT: The Best of the God Blogs)

We need to be very careful not to have a Michal-attitude concerning the music and worship of others. (Mathew Sims of Under Sovereign Grace pointed out this attitude here.)

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

The REAL meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

1 Thess. 5:22 in the KJV says “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” This is a perfectly acceptable translation. But from the Greek, we know that “appearance of evil” does not mean “any thing that appears to be evil”, but “any appearance that evil makes”. This is why the ESV has “Abstain from every form of evil.” Whatever manifestation evil takes on, this is to be abstained from.

Matt Fitzsimmons pointed out a great post dealing with vs. 22 in its larger context. This opened up to me a greater understanding of this text. Vs. 19 thru 22 are all one sentence in Greek. The issue addressed is quenching the work of the Spirit. Demeaning prophesying (preaching would be a good equivalent today) was one way the Thessalonians were doing that. Rather than despising prophyesying, Paul instructed them to welcome it, yet not indiscriminately. They were to prove each prophesying and reject those that did not pass the test, while clinging to the ones that did. Thus they were to abstain from every manifestation evil would make–even evil in the form of a public prophecy. Such a contextual treatment of vs. 22 makes it emphatically clear that it is not addressing the avoidance of conduct which might appear to be evil.

However most independent fundamental Baptists claim that this verse teaches that we should abstain from any conduct which might be looked upon as evil. It is a favorite proof text against attendance at movie theaters. (See my previous post on that topic.) Yet its applications (in this sense) are numerous. This contributes to an emphasis on external conduct and appearances within the fundamentalist movement, in my opinion (see my comment in this regard here at Matt Fitzsimmons’ blog).

Scripture has much to say about avoiding actually evil behaviors. Romans 7 deals patently with the saved person’s struggle to avoid personal, actual evil. But does any Scripture (besides the above explained 1 Thess. 5:22) demand we avoid behaviors which might only seem evil?

Well, someone might point to Scripture’s teaching that we should not purposely offend a brother or let our behavior become a stumbling block to a weak believer. However, the context of these commands seems to clearly revolve around scenarios in which we are aware that the brother or weak believer is present, and thus liable to being offended with us personally. 1 Cor. 8 and 10 deals with putting meat down for that potentially-offended brother to eat (in our presence, obviously), which he knows to be meat that was offered to idols. Rom. 14-15 again deals with meat and drink and assumes that the brother could be offended by our partaking in their presence, or our interaction with them concerning our beliefs and theirs. Clearly from Rom. 14 Paul does not say we should defer to potential misunderstanding and refuse to partake of meat or drink. He says instead we should have an obliging and loving attitude to everyone who may differ with our firm belief that our practice is God-glorifying and legal. Further, Rom. 14 also deals with days. Some still observed Jewish feasts and kept the Sabbath in a Jewish way, apparently. But this was inherently the weak position. Thus, there was no call to celebrate the sabbath in a Jewish sense, for fear of someone happening to see you passing by with a burden on your shoulder, or something. What is in view is our welcoming one another, and getting along despite differing views on such non-moral issues. (See my earlier post linking to some fantastic sermons on this passage by John Piper.) To stretch the “stumbling block” prohibition into a prohibition of any behavior which might potentially offend a believer who might potentially find out about that behavior in some indirect manner is patently wrong.

The Bible does teach that we should have a war-time mentality, which would lead us to avoid practices which might entagle us in earthly pursuits (2 Tim. 2:4), and to cast off things which might weigh us down in our heavenly race (Heb. 12:1). So I am not saying that Christians should just go out and do every permissible thing they can. And clearly there are some Biblical principles to keep in mind when planning our conduct. But the force of Scripture is behind a concern for personal morality, not a concern as to what others might think about your behaviors. We are judged by God, and must be concerned most with his opinion. And he looks both on our external conduct and on our heart.

UPDATE: The article this post refers to is no longer available online. I have written my own article with a similar title as this post. You can read that here.

My first trip to the movie theater!

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

A scene from <em>The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe</em>--picture from <i>World</i>, 12/17/05, (Picture credits= Phil Bray--Walt Disney Pictures/AP)
I intend to make this movie, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, the first one I see in a movie theater. This statement might raise your eyebrows for any of 3 reasons.

First, you might be floored that I have never been to a movie theater. And if you are amazed, that lets me know that you probably are generally clueless as to the practices of independent fundamental Baptists (IFBs) by and large. You will be surprised, then, to find out that the vast majority of IFBs preach against and generally frown on going to movie theaters, as do some other non-IFB churches. Many would also view people who attend their churches and also attend movie theaters as less than spiritual believers, a kind of sub-Christian to them. “These people definitely need to get right with God, they have not yet sold out to Him,” they might think.

Second, you might be floored that I would actually go to a movie theater. If this is your reaction, you most likely are an IFB. So, let me remind you that the IFB practice of not going to a movie theater is solidly rooted in a traditional taboo, and little else. Before the proliferation of TV and movies, and before the regulation (which included rating systems) of the movie industry, there was a generally widespread reaction against movies. And certainly today no one would doubt that the movie industry produces a whole bunch of garbage–morally deficient or rather immorally proficient. But does the fact that movies can be evil require that the audiovisual medium of TV or the movie be viewed as evil too? Since tape recordings can be made of extremely vulgar language or sexually explicit themes, should I trash my tape recorder? Or does the fact that I might possibly see a woman dressed immodestly during the summer, require that I wear blinders whenever I am outdoors in a public location? Or how about the medium of the magazine? Since the best selling magazines are pornographic, must I never purchase any magazine of any type at all?

As you can see, I contend that the IFB reaction to movie theaters is an over reaction. But I further contend that it is largely a dishonest reaction. In my experience at least more than 90% of IFBs who shun movie theaters frequent video stores! They reason that one can select decent entertainment and be more in control by utilizing the VCR or now the DVD player for entertainment. But let me suggest that you can equally be selective as to which show you view at the theater! The fact that so many people (and yes IFBs number in the millions possibly as high as 10 million or more, when you lump the various groups together) conscientously refrain from movie theaters while having no problem with going in to a Blockbuster ought to be just plain stunning! “How could this be?” does anyone wonder. I contend that it represents the mindless adherence to a tradition for tradition’s sake alone. (What is more amazing I wonder, that so many would mindlessly perpetuate a tradition and hold people morally accountable to it, or that so many people would not see the glaring inconsistency between going to a video store and preaching against movie theaters!) The tradition is enforced, though. People fear getting “written off” as unspiritual or just plain rebellious by their peers and leaders, if caught going to a theater. I must say there are some IFBs which have recognized the inconsistency and their solution has been to preach against video stores. Better to forbid Bugs Bunny than to possibly allow someone to watch a PG 13 movie. Of course, no cultivation of Christian discernment and no waiting on the Holy Spirit’s individual work in believer’s lives is furthered by this stand. Far easier, and simpler to just call for mindless submission to the often almost-cultic leader.

Before leaving this point, I must turn to the common argumentation for these stands. I believe that I can turn the two most commonly raised objections to attending movie theaters on their head. First, it is said that no one will know what you watched when you are seen coming out of a theater (of course if they look at the sign which lists a fairly new release of a popular kids movie rated G and you are seen holding your children’s hands, they must be blind not to put two and two together…) and so this is a potentially damaging testimony issue. Of course no one will know which movies you rented when seen leaving the local Blockbuster either. And no one will know whether you drank beer when you come out of a Pizza Hut or Apple Bees either! And no one will know if you bought a dirty R rated movie at Wal-mart when you are seen leaving that store, too. Ad infitum. Second, it is said that one must “avoid all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). Beside the fact that that is a misinterpretation of the verse (based on the misunderstanding of the KJV’s 400 year old english, the Greek word means “form” and the verse is not addressing what things look like on the outside, but is saying avoid every kind or every form of evil, that you could happen to be involved with), there is as much “appearance of evil” coming out of a video store as a movie theater. The fact is there are many wholesome films which can be watched by discerning believers today. Yes, discernment is often necessary, but that is how God made this earth. To make everything really nice and easy, we could just go and join the Amish, now, couldn’t we?

[UPDATE: I posted this before my clarification. I do not intend by this argumentation to despise someone who concludes that it is best to protect their family from the wrong influence of Hollywood by avoiding the theater and using videos/DVDs with discernment. In fact, I feel that we as Christians have so much more to do than waste all our time on often mediocre (at best) entertainment! I am merely trying to point out that in this issue we cannot be dogmatic and insist that if anyone goes to a theater they are sinning or are not being careful with regards to sin. It is the fact that so many IFBs (and especially IFBxs {see clarification}) preach their position on theaters as Bible, ie. absolute truth, that deeply offends me. It seems the movement prefers to tout a list of authoritative regulations rather than encourage the independent and Biblically-informed use of discernment when it comes to dealing with the complexities of our increasingly immoral culture.]

Third, you might wonder why I would make it a point that a Narnia movie would be the first one I would attend. Well, to tell you the truth, with two girls under the age of 3, it isn’t as easy to go out and attend a movie for us, as you might think. Also, since I never have gone to a theater [other than to a couple IMAX theaters, those are somehow legal :-} ] it often does not enter my mind to go. But I was challenged to go to Narnia in the theater specifically, when I read Hugh Hewitt’s article in World Magazine (Dec. 17, 2005 issue). Let me quote briefly from it.

The Christian community has a question to answer as well: Can it wholeheartedly embrace a movie project like LWW that provides exactly what’s been desired for so long, even when it comes from a studio and a corporation, like Disney, that has often disappointed in the past? Those who would welcome more and more breakthroughs like The Passion and the Narnian adventures should hope the answer to that question is a resounding yes. [Read it all…]

Some may object that going to movies like the Passion or Narnia represents an evangelical fad (see this interesting post by James Spurgeon). And to some extent they may be right. But since we live in the world, and since the world happens to be talking about such movies, cannot we interact better by seeing them too. Also, from the standpoint of culture, we Christians have long decried the moral degradation of Hollywood (IFBs often louder than any), but when we are presented with films that are both morally good, and artistically good, should we not support them. With the hopes that our support could lead to more and more wholesome entertainment choices for our families? Not to say that entertainment should have a huge place in our homes, we are called to love, serve, and risk all in sacrificing for Christ. But in our era of 8-5 workdays, entertainment is inevitable. If Christians promote wholesome entertainment, they can in one way preserve the godliness of our culture (what little remains), and in that way fulfill part of our admonition to be salt and light to this earth.

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

Romans 14 by John Piper

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I encourage you all to listen to these sermons on Romans 14.

I wish I had understood the message of Romans 14 a long time ago. It speaks to how we relate to others who have differing positions on nonessential issues. The passage says that how we treat others is vitally important, but which position we have on nonessential issues is not as vitally important. (The text clearly says it is viatl for us to welcome one another, irrespective of position, rather than charging us to have the correct position.)

Piper does a great job in this series and the first couple sermons really present an overview of the whole chapter that is priceless.

Here are the links.

UPDATE: I updated the links 12/17/2007.