Category: Separation/Unity

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

Fundamentalism: Separation-Centered rather than Gospel-Centered

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

President Matt Olson at Northland International University is stirring up his fair share of criticism as he enacts reforms and quietly changes the ethos of what was Northland Baptist Bible College. From afar, I applaud his efforts and his bravery. He is taking shots from all sides of the ring!

My blogging friend Will Dudding at The Reforming Baptist, recently explained the pickle that Olson is in a post intriguingly titled “Northland, CCM, Fundamentalism & the Separation Nazis.”

One particular comment from his post really resonated with me. I believe it is spot on and covers almost the entire gamut of fundamentalism. I have bolded the phrase in the except below.

The gospel as the central unifying factor and the matter of first importance is often scoffed at on their blogs. They regularly deride movements like T4G and TGC that are propelling the gospel forward more than Fundamentalism has been doing. Being Separation-centered is more important to them than being Gospel-centered. Fundamentalism as a movement has done nothing in my generation and is going nowhere except to the trash heap of history. Christianity will survive well enough without it. Matt Olsen would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school.

I believe this is the problem, fundamentalists as a whole eschew a gospel-centered unity in favor of a separation-centric modus operandi. I have shared similar thoughts on this idea before in my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

What’s your thought on this? Is it unfair to say fundamentalism is separation-centered?

John Dickerson on the Fragmentation of Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The Great Evangelical Recession by John S DickersonIn my recent review of John Dickerson’s new book The Great Evangelical Recession, I was not able to spend as much time as I would have liked on Dickerson’s thoughts regarding the “fragmentation of evangelicalism.” This dis-unity of evangelicalism is indeed a problem, but there are a host of competing views as to what is the exact nature of this problem!

In his book, I found Dickerson’s emphasis on this point to be superb. He boldly calls the church to draw a clear line as to who is in and who is out of the evangelical movement, particularly with regard to the abandonment of penal substitution and inerrancy (p. 157). With regard to these positions, Dickerson says, “I believe it’s time we graciously call such revisions what they are: non-evangelical” (p. 157). Yet at the same time, he labors to point out how we need to be less divisive on the non-essential matters such as politics and some of our doctrinal differences. He lauds Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry as men who “parsed a difficult trail between theological liberalism on the left and belligerent reactionism on the right” (p. 219). “True evangelicalism,” he says, “is uncompromising on the essentials and unconditionally gracious on the non-essentials” (p. 161).

In a recent interview of the author by Trevin Wax, Dickerson elaborates again on his vision for evangelical unity. The exchange below is reflective very much of my own views, at this point. I guess I could consider myself a “true evangelical” (if we want another label to be thrown around)! I remain conservative in theology but see the need to be welcoming and gracious (to a point) in how I hold to my various theological and cultural positions. I am interested in my readers’ thoughts on this topic and their assessment of Dickerson’s view as well. So read the excerpt below and let me know what you think.

Trevin Wax: What role does the fragmentation of evangelicalism into distinct tribes and camps play in the “recession” you believe is on the horizon? What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?

John Dickerson: In the book I get to spend two chapters – Dividing and Uniting – on these questions. This is one of my favorite topics, because Jesus spoke so often of the unity of His true believers (see John 17:20-23 in particular).

The power of diverse churches working together was, in my estimate, the greatest strength of American evangelicalism during the 20th Century. And yes, the “fragmentation” of the “movement” plays a huge role in the present decline of American evangelicalism.

Humanly speaking, it will take a miracle to combat fragmentation in the 21st Century. Presently, I see evangelicals falling into the same three positions they took during the early 20th Century, in the Fundamentalists vs. Liberalism debates.

I see more evangelicals separating and defining themselves by who they oppose. This is really a new manifestation of Fundamentalism. Simultaneously, other so-called “evangelicals” are getting soft on Scripture and atonement. They are essentially reincarnations of the old theological liberals who sabotaged the mainline denominations. History demonstrates that those extreme oppositional and capitulating views both fail Christ and the Church over time.

Back in the 1940′s and 50′s, Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry, cut an intentional path between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. They avoided the militant negativity on one hand, and they avoided the spongy pluralism on the other. These men cast vision for an evangelical movement truly defined by both grace and truth. My heart, my real passion is for a new generation to step in where Graham, Ockenga and Henry once did, to rally evangelical believers around Christ again.

I pray regularly that God will lift up a new generation of Spirit-led 21st Century Evangelical leaders who will clean that old path between the two extremes—the path that is uncompromising on doctrine and Scripture, but also gracious, loving and ultimately focused outward, toward the world we are called to reach.

This was my driving passion in writing this book, to perhaps be a small voice in a bigger conversation toward evangelical unity in the 21st Century. It is a passionate prayer of mine that God raises up leaders like this for our generation – to lead souls and organizations down this road of uncompromising Grace and Truth. Biblical unity is more important than ever—but it’s also more challenging than ever.

Trevin Wax: What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?

John Dickerson: The book really digs into this, but here are a few passing thoughts.

  • We have to stop tearing each other down, period.
  • We have to actually believe Jesus’ words in John 17:23, when He prayed “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23). According to Jesus, unity is a guaranteed apologetic for His followers. Because Jesus took this seriously, we’d better start taking it seriously.
  • We do have to graciously clarify non-evangelical departures from the atonement and the infallibility of Scripture, and part company when non-evangelical doctrines are held.
  • We have to start local—by praying with and caring for other pastors and leaders in our proximity.
  • We have to start praying for the Kingdom, beyond our own congregation and brand. At Cornerstone in Prescott, we often pray—by name—for other evangelical congregations in our city. We do this during our Sunday worship, as we pray that God’s Kingdom would truly come and His will would be done in our community.
  • We must unite around Christ Himself as the Head of the Church—and around His simple Gospel message of salvation by faith alone in His work on the cross alone.
  • We must maintain Scriptural authority as an essential in the unifying creeds. As the nursery song says, we only know how much Jesus loves me, because “the Bible tells me so.”

Pick up a copy of this book at Christianbook.com, Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or direct from Baker.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baker Books. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

What Makes a Church a Cult?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.