Category: Separation/Unity

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

Dave Doran on Why the Label “Fundamentalist” Doesn’t Work Anymore

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Dave Doran has posted some reflections on where we are after the Advancing the Church conference, with respect to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals (or at least where he is coming from). Of course separation and fellowship are the twin concerns for today’s fundamentalists: just how much fellowship can we permit with conservative evangelicals who don’t proudly wear the label “Fundamentalist”? Now that Kevin Bauder has clarified his current stance and hesitations over extending full fellowship to someone like Mark Dever, perhaps Doran sees the need to clarify some statements of his own. In any case, the last few posts on Doran’s blog have been meaty and traced the development of his thinking on these questions over the last 20 years or more.

In yesterday’s post, Doran discussed fences, shibboleths, fundamentalism, non-fundamentalist separatists, and more. His conclusion is worth posting here in full, but I encourage you to read his whole post (or better yet scroll down from here and read the last several “reflections” posts). I’m glad Doran continues to explain his take on things as the questions he’s exploring need to be hammered out by fundamentalists, and have needed to be for several years (or more).

…I am not advocating extending Christian fellowship to those who have denied the faith. I am not advocating toleration of those who do it. Just the opposite, in fact. I am advocating that these very specific questions be the ones that govern our decision making. Those questions are the baseline for fellowship and cooperation. A lot more matters to me than these, but anything other than the right answers here prevents it. The circle of people that can answer these questions satisfactorily is not limited to self-professing fundamentalists. IOW, there are separatists who don’t claim to be fundamentalists. My fellowship is limited to those self-professing fundamentalists who are genuine separatists and also other genuine separatists even if they don’t call themselves fundamentalists.

That last sentence prompts the real question of the hour””will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence? If so, is that a fence that can be defended biblically and practically?

I agree almost entirely here. I still consider myself a fundamentalist in many respects, but I’m not in a church which considers itself part of the fundamentalist movement. Yet the concern for doctrinal purity and biblical living is equal to or more than what I have found in many fundamentalist churches. I’m interested to hear your take on this, too. Do you agree or disagree with Doran? I’m all ears.

Doug Wilson on Pessimistic Assumptions & the Piper/Warren Controversy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 23 Comments

Following up on my post from this weekend, I stumbled across this jewel of a video clip with Doug Wilson discussing the Rick Warren / John Piper controversy. He makes some insightful comments about how pessimism plays a role in the conservative church today when we assess situations such as Piper and Warren getting together to talk. We assume that something bad is going to happen, rather than looking for a positive outcome. I think Wilson is on to something here, even if I don’t totally buy into his eschatology. Listen to the clip below and let me know what you think.

Rick Warren and Desiring God 2010 (Part III) from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Be Careful about Bearing False Witness: John Piper, Rick Warren and Over-the-top Reactions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

John Piper’s ministry, Desiring God, will be holding a regional conference at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California April 29-30. Pastor Piper will also be speaking, apparently, at Saddleback Church on Sunday May 1.

Now, Rick Warren’s ministry raises some question marks for sure. Should the church be focusing on poverty and world peace so closely as an extension of ministry? Do some of Warren’s teaching methods and outreach efforts really cater to the “felt-needs” of the unchurched too much, to the point where the gospel is obscured? Does having the Jonas Brothers performing in concert reveal a total lack of discernment?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here about Rick Warren, but I haven’t talked with him either. What bothers me, is that many people are quick to point to John Piper’s speaking at Saddleback, and Rick Warren’s speaking at the Desiring God Conference in Minneapolis last Fall, and conclude that John Piper has sold out on the Gospel, and has compromised the faith.

I recently came across remarks by Ingrid Schlueter, a well-known watch-blogger:

Despite the countless and detailed warnings that have gone out over the last decade about Rick Warren and his distortion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, John Piper prepares to deliver his followers to the platform at Saddleback Church in an act of ultimate spiritual betrayal on April 29 and 30, 2011.

John Piper, perhaps more than anyone else who has been seduced by Dr. Warren through the years, is without excuse. Could there be a teacher more aware of what the Gospel actually is according to Scripture? Someone with a more thorough knowledge of the whole Counsel of God? Someone with more access to the best commentaries, the best theological instruction, the most devout and rigorous Bible teaching colleagues in the land? Yet he falls, and with him, takes innumerable sheep who will trust him to their own destruction.

“Ultimate spiritual betrayal,” really??? Piper is taking us to our “own destruction”??

In a Facebook conversation recently, someone mentioned that Warren taught a works-based righteousness. Another said Piper speaking at Saddleback would be “counter-productive to the gospel effort”. I respect the people who said these things, but I think they are swept up in a frenzy of mis-information, and well-intentioned paranoia.

Rick Warren is not a false teacher or a denier of the Gospel. He may muddy the waters signficantly, but he isn’t a devil or antichrist. He is just the latest incarnation of American revivalism meets pragmatism. His message is not strange. It might not be as clear doctrinally as some would like (although we don’t get to see all the doctrinal teaching that goes on at Saddleback, up close and personal). His preaching may not always be verse-by-verse exposition. But He does revere the Bible and preach a plain Gospel.

It is hard to judge people solely on one-liners given in front of a hostile interviewer. I’m sure Warren’s failed sometimes in articulating the gospel message clearly. In this interview at Fox News, however, I think he did a good job in presenting that Jesus is the only way, and that salvation is a gift — while still not coming off as being extremely judgmental and mean-spirited. But we don’t have to go by just his public media appearances. Here is a 13 minute video where he presents the Gospel, answering the question “What does it mean to begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” Now his gospel presentation there differs little from many given around the country every Sunday. It’s not as clearly Reformed as some would prefer, and it emphasizes a “sinner’s prayer”. But it is still clearly a grace-based, Biblical, Gospel presentation.

I’ve read some of Warren’s reflections about his incredibly popular book, The Purpose Driven Life, where he admits to being Calvinistic in his doctrine, even. I watched his message delivered to the Desiring God National Conference last Fall. I thought it was full of helpful information and really opened up a side of Rick Warren I hadn’t hear much of before. I heard John Piper’s explanations about why he invited Rick Warren: here and here. I’ve also posted about the controversy at length before. (And I’m not the only one who thinks the reactions against Piper and Warren are seriously over-the-top.)

But for my part, Piper speaking at Saddleback, and having a DG Conference at Rick Warren’s church is far less a problem than having Warren come speak at his conference. The Conference is going to be John Piper speaking in three sessions about the essence of “Desiring God”. It will be a standard Piper conference focusing on the 25th anniversary of Piper’s hugely influential (and thoroughly Biblical) book, Desiring God. I am thrilled that many of the people at Saddleback may get to hear that teaching and be shaped by Piper’s emphasis on God’s glory. And then, Piper speaks at Saddleback, and he can give his message and say what’s on his heart. I’ve heard many a well-known Baptist fundamentalist even claim they’d preach at the Vatican if given the chance to preach the gospel. Why should Piper preaching at Saddleback’s pulpit be necessarily a compromise of the Gospel?

This post is a bit of a vent, I’m sorry. It might not flow all that well. I’m just saddened to see so many derail Rick Warren as being an “antichrist”. I literally read someone wish that Piper had called Warren out as exactly that, an “antichrist”. Or just as sad, consider how a commenter at Justin Taylor’s blog described Rick Warren: a “Gospel-betraying, Bible-hating evildoer”! This kind of reaction is over-the-top, and I believe it also “bears false witness” in direct violation of the 9th commandment. The kind of ill-will and judgmentalism displayed toward Piper and Warren is as detrimental to the Gospel and more so, than some of Warren’s public statements which are less than clear about the Gospel.

Fundamentalists & Evangelicals Together? — The Advancing the Church Conference Evaluated

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I haven’t listened to the audio from Calvary Baptist Seminary’s Advancing the Church conference yet, as it wasn’t available until yesterday or so. I started listening to the panel sessions, and plan to listen to most of the messages. I have been reading several reactions to the conference, however, and I wanted to make my readers aware of the conference and the discussion it has generated.

The conference featured fundamentalist leaders Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, both in Allen Park, MI), Dr. Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dr. Tim Jordan (pastor of of Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA) and Dr. Sam Harbin (president of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA). The guest of note, and the keynote speaker, however, was Dr. Mark Dever (pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and president of 9 Marks Ministries). Mark Dever, is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention and is not a fundamentalist (in the sense of the fundamentalist movement common in independent Baptist churches). Mark Dever is a leader among the conservative evangelicals, and his ministry focuses on equipping local churches and promoting historic Baptist church polity.

So at ATC, we had Fundamentalists and Evangelicals Together! Well, at least one evangelical, together. I don’t know if the acronym FET will work as well as the one which marks another contemporary Church phenomenon (ECT)**. And furthermore, I am not sure what we have here is any kind of official convergence bringing opposing factions closer to a mutual agreement. But I, for one, am encouraged by the participation of Mark Dever in the ATC conference, and the fellowship that was shared publicly and in private between the fundamentalist leaders mentioned and Mark Dever.

To help understand what happened at ATC, the following news reports will help.

Baptist Bulletin has three articles reporting on the conference:

Brian McCrorie and a few others, contributed several summaries of the panel sessions and individual sessions on the Sharper Iron Event Blog. Click here for all the Event Blog posts, and click here for Brian’s concluding thoughts about his experience at ATC.

Dr. Kevin Bauder gave his reflections, which amounts to a very long blog post detailing his own personal conclusions, presently, about Fundamentalists working together with Evangelicals. For those wondering if Kevin is ready to eject from fundamentalism, this should answer your question with a resounding NO. Personally, I think Kevin Bauder is defining separation to broadly and ready to apply it to quickly — but that’s my general take on most of fundamentalism in general. If you’re interested you can see a bit of an exchange between yours truly and Dr. Bauder in the comments under that long post. I think Dr. Bauder clarifies himself but I still disagree.

Here is the link to where you can freely download the conference audio. Warning the file sizes are quite big.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. I’m interested to hear if anyone attended this conference or has listened to some of the audio/followed the blog conversation thus far. Are we looking at an eventual collusion between conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever and fundamentalists? Personally, I think both groups could be improved through such a scenario.

**I should note, that I am not in favor of the goals of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

Still a Fundamentalist at Heart: My Stance on Roman Catholicism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Some readers of my blog dismiss me as having in effect abandoned the faith. They are so committed to certain fundamentalist practices and positions that they refuse to look on me with any grace. I am a hopeless liberal to them, and have abandoned important implications of the Gospel, and rejected Scriptural teaching.

My blog professes to stand “for the Unity of the Faith for the Glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7”. In fact I strive for that. Much division in the body of Christ is avoidable and harmful. I’ve expressed my concerns over a radical separatism which views anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a fundamentalist with suspicion and distrust — even scorn.

I have found a wider grace in Christ through my experience with Reformed Theology, which rather than making me more narrow-minded has freed me to hope the best in people and let God do His work. This charitable spirit which many have taken time to thank me for, is nevertheless acknowledged by some critics to be just the spirit of this post-modern age. I’m nice and want to be nice. And niceness is all this is about. I don’t have the backbone needed to defend the faith as fundamentalists really should.

So I find it somewhat ironic that I am now being taken to task for my stance on Roman Catholicism by people to the left of me. I guess this is proof positive that I am still a fundamentalist at heart! In my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill, I added the following caution:

I have but one small reservation with this book. Hill details both a Roman Catholic’s and Greek Orthodox’s struggle on this issue with no caution about the deficient theology of those churches. There may be genuine Christians who are RC or Orthodox, but they are the exception not the rule. Perhaps those faiths are more open to the struggle for faithful celibacy and so have something he can identify with. As a Protestant, I fear the gospel can be at stake in so easily recommending Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy with their denial of justification by faith alone.

I am now said to be the harsh judgmental one, who refuses to extend grace to the millions of Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians around the world. I’m being denounced in no uncertain terms; here, here and here, and especially here. I’m hindering “the unity of the faith”, I’m the one who isn’t nice and is making harsh judgments.

Let me be clear, I still hold that the Bible does lay down guidelines and boundaries to the faith. We are not given the right to just blur those boundaries whenever we want. We don’t find Paul doing that, he names names and contends for the faith (as do the other Apostles). There is “another gospel” which is no gospel. The danger of false teachers looms large all over the New Testament. It behooves those who prize the Gospel, to defend the Gospel. Unity goes up to a point, but ultimately it must be tethered to the Gospel. Where the Gospel is in danger of being lost, unity can not continue.

So that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess. I think some doctrine is so vital to the essence of Christianity, that it must be defended and cannot be denied without serious consequences.

And I am not alone in my assessment of Roman Catholicism. Consider the words of one of the original fundamentalists from the 1920s:

I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions. [T. W. Medhurst, “Is Romanism Christianity?” in The Fundamentals, edited by R.A. Torrey, online here]

Or consider the eloquent and large-hearted Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

There are, of course, individuals who are both Roman Catholics and Christians. You can be a Christian and yet be a Roman Catholic. My whole object is to try to show that such people are Christians in spite of the system to which they belong, and not because of it. [source]

I must say I haven’t read primary Catholic authors writing after Vatican 2. But in what I’ve heard and read about Vatican 2 it never abrogates the Council of Trent and it doesn’t change church teaching on additional things “necessary unto salvation”. I’m foolish enough to trust the Reformers and evangelical Protestants up through the middle of the 20th Century who have studied these matters and conclude that Roman Catholic doctrine on salvation is confusing at best and damning at worst.

Consider just a few of the statements from The Council of Trent, the reaction that Rome officially gave to the Protestant Reformation:

On Justification
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

On Baptism
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

On the Eucharist
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

On Penance
CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

On the Mass
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is addition to the Gospel and hence it is “another Gospel”. See Galatians 5:2-6 and 1:6-9. That is my understanding and the understanding of the Reformers and most evangelical Protestant churches. I consider the trappings of the religious system which is Catholicism conspire to cloud out the simplicity of the gospel. Veneration of the saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, the role of priests, the place the Eucharist holds, penance, beads, icons, holy object, the holy pope “” all of these easily vie for central place.

UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem anathematizing me. The pope has no problem not recognizing my church as valid. Why isn’t that a big deal worth getting upset about?

I freely admit evangelicalism has its problems, and in many places another gospel is preached there too. But I cannot turn a blind eye to Rome’s problems. Call me a kook if you will. There are intelligent and careful responses to Rome’s doctrine available for those who search. Perhaps some of my readers can recommend good resources on this. I do respect and appreciate much that the Roman Catholic Church stands for and has bequeathed to us. But it is dead wrong on salvation and is misleading countless millions of followers around the world.

I realize this won’t win me many awards (except negative ones), and it won’t make me popular. But I aim for faithfulness rather than acceptance by the biblioblogging community.