Tag: conference

Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 33 Comments

The following is an enlightening discussion among some of the leaders of today’s fundamentalism. The participants in this discussion are: Dave Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI; Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church and long-time professor at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC; Chris Anderson, pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH; and Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. The panel included some other members too, but only these and the moderator (who I assume was host pastor Mike Harding) were participants in the following exchange.

The panel discussion is from the Preserving the Truth Conference, and available as a free MP3 download there. This question and the ensuing discussion can be found at 8:33 – 26:38 on the MP3. I did the transcription below myself, so any errors or inconsistencies in punctuation are my fault. Anything within brackets was added for explanation. I thought having this transcribed would be of interest to many, as otherwise it is buried in an audio download that not everyone would take time to listen to.

This is a bit lengthy, but regular readers of my blog should find it interesting. For those wondering what fundamentalists think of evangelicals, this would be good reading too. I’ll reserve my comments until after the exchange.

———————————

Moderator: Much has been written about the differences between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. What do you consider to be the most significant differences and why? I’m going to address that to Dr. Doran.

[laughter]

Dave Doran (D): Well, let me begin by saying… that I… implied in what I said in my session is, that I think those are defective categories. Uh… So, I don’t think they are helpful for the discussion. They operate with a sense of us and them. When if I could just… My thought on it is… We’re not sure who “us” is, we’re not sure who “them” is. We’re not sure what makes us, “us”; and what makes them, “them”. So to… to have the conversation seems inevitably to run into significant ditches, and… and that’s the tension. Now if… if I could… uh… if I could go back to what was just being said. If we wanted to take a distinctive that I think must control our relationships and say what is a church’s and, for lack of a better term, minister’s belief and practice with regard to the defense of the faith. Do they believe that we cannot extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied the faith? And that in fact to do that is a disobedience of such a high order that we must withdraw fellowship or withhold it from them? If that becomes the… the… the ah, umbrella within which we can have fellowship, then I think you’re going to have a people who have a lot of different distinctives and you’re going to have people who are closer, more closely aligned with each other at various spots inside there. But it won’t be ah… we can’t have any connection to all of these, or else the rip cord side of it would be… I personally believe, that there are people who are accepted by fundamentalists with whom we should not, ah… we should not accept. And if people are part of associations or fellowships that accept them, do I have to now pull out of my fellowship with those people? And we’ve not done it to that direction. We’ve only done it to the other side. And my point would be to say, uh… that’s why I think it ceases to function well for us to have those 2 categories at this point. Because the “us” category, the “fundamentalist” category is such a mixed breed right now, personally. And, and… every time, like even, and I thought Matt did a great job in the creation thing but, when he was trying to ask the question… conservative evangelicals and young earth creation… he starts naming names. And they believe it, they don’t believe it; they believe it, they don’t believe it. So… so, is there actually a conservative evangelical position on it? Because we don’t even know who those are, like Tremper Longman. I wouldn’t necessarily even put [him] in a conservative evangelical [position], but some people might… But so that’s the tension. Who is “them”? And… so, I just think… I am personally of the view, that… um, that… that as long as we’re thinking of those categories and we’re trying to think of what distinguishes us from them… uh… we’re running into a wall, because we’re coming up with things that we wouldn’t separate from fundamentalists who think those things. That’s my thoughts.

Moderator: And it’s open up for discussion.

Mark Minnick (M): Yea… I… here’s… and I really understand what Dave is saying. Part of my way of trying to get at an answer is to ask what… what, do those people say about themselves in distinction from us. And when I’ve had opportunity of interchange with them, that’s what I try to get at. Because… because the distance here, is… is two way. It isn’t just that we have distanced ourselves, but they are self-identified as well. So when they look at us, what do they say is not true of them, that is true of us and important to us? What are those things?

D: I’ve not heard any. Because… because the people… the people they say that about, I say you’re right.

M: Oh, you mean… when… when they say, that’s not me.

D: Well, when they say… If I say to them, “What about fundamentalism…”

M: …and you say it’s not you either…

D: Right.

M: Yea. Right. [signifying agreement]

D: “…What do you do you reject about fundamentalism?” When I hear them describe it, I go, “I don’t believe that”.

Chris Anderson (?): Well, you add… you add to that… The conservative evangelicals are more likely to speak in ways to disassociate themselves from broad evangelicalism. You know… they’re they’re actually looking at evangelicalism saying, “We’re not that; we’re opposed to that; let’s you know…” Our church when we go through an orientation class… we kind of teach “Here’s where we stand historically”. We’ll go through “Fundamentalism and modernism have had their controversy, and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. “Fundamentalism and new evangelicalism had their controversy and so the pie gets cut again and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. And when we started that with a church plant, I would just stop there, “so… we’re on the… you know, that’s… that’s us”. And now I actually… you know go further… and say, “Now within this group of fundamentalists that separated, at least you know historically, they’re following those who separated from new evangelicalism… now there are so many other issues within this piece of the pie that we don’t agree with…” “And there’s actually some of the evangelical piece of the pie that is more like us than they are like the evangelicals, and that I agree with them more than I agree with…” It’s just become very complicated… And… uh, I agree… I agree that the “us” and “them” and… and those kind of categories… It’s probably simpler to say let’s take just one issue like music, and how do we relate to… you know… how do we differ on that issue. Well, within evangelicalism you’re going to have Sovereign Grace [Music] and you’re going to have Paula S. Jones. It… everything is just complicated and it needs attention on one issue, one person at a time, I think.

D: If if I could just… add one thing. My point would be to say, I don’t think we obliterate the categories so that we can cooperate with each other. Mine is to say, those categories are not functioning well. So let’s go to what was the category that preceded these categories, and that is about the defense of the gospel, the purity of the church. Where… where does a person come down on those issues? And this is where I would affirm, what I’ve always said, Do they agree with and demonstrate through application that agreement… So if somebody tells me “Yea, I’m a separatist”, and if they’ve never actually done it, then I’m not sure that… you know… So if they agree and apply with what seems… what seems to be a good… good conscience effort to apply it, then… then I know there’s at least something something there, to use a Bauderism, that we have in common, about which we can fellowship. But if we don’t, at that point… There’s share, share, there’s something we share…

[laughter]

Kevin Bauder (B): Um, Dave, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Dave.

D: Sure you do.

B: No, I’m…

[laughter]

B: No, I get it.

D: Come on, just cut right to the chase.

B: I don’t disagree with the point. But, here we are, we’re us and none of them are here.

[laughter]

Moderator (?): There’s a few of them out there.

D: Yea I was saying… I think based on what I said… Some of them are thinking they are.

B: And when it comes to T4G and the Gospel Coalition there they are. And I don’t know, Mark, have you… have you been invited to preach at T4G, Gospel Coalition?

M: No.

B: Dave, have you?

D: No.

[laughter]

D: But… but I don’t think that’s because of my fundamentalism. They, ah…

Moderator (?): It’s your goatee.

B: We’d like the list!

D: No, I’m just… I mean… who’s?.. They’re not going to ask me to speak it, they’re going to look at the list, and go “Dave Doran, who is that?” You know…

M: No but… but listen… that’s part of my viewpoint on this. I really share this with Kevin. Almost… almost all of the overtures in the last 10 years have been made from our side. In other words, we… we have been the ones…

D: I think you… you were invited to preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church [Mark Dever’s church], weren’t you?

M: Yes.

D: So was I. So there’s at least one overture that…

M: Yea, but that was after we made the overture to him. In other words..

D: Not, not in my case.

M: And I would only use that…

D: He sought me out. We were in the same place, and he sought me out because he was trying to figure out fundamentalists.

B: Now, I’d be interested to know in both your cases, did you do it, and why or why not.

M: Yea… well, yea… but… but, the background on this…

[laughter]

D: You know that light… that buzzer that goes out when you’re backing into something? You just heard it. “Me-me-me-me-me.”

[laughter]

M: No… I mean, the broader background to this is… I know that for 10 or 15 years here… that men within our movement have made an effort to try to get some of these men together occasionally in private settings, and say “Let’s talk, we don’t really understand”, or “We don’t think you understand us, and we know we don’t… maybe understand your heart”. Um… And I think… I think we have been the initiators in general for that kind of thing. And in those talks there are differences that come out on the principial level. Um… and so… when those things are there, even though we in some cases have found we’re pretty close, when it comes to the consistency of application, it breaks down. And puts me, I know, in a position, where I would end up giving a very uncertain sound to the people that God has entrusted some responsibility of example to. Um… if I then join together with their glaring inconsistency of practice of the principle they agreed with, in private, with me. Because publicly, they’re not enunciating that principle, and they’re not known for articulating it publicly and they’re not known for consistently practicing it. Where, I am. I’m not saying this approving of myself. I’m just saying as part of the movement I am… I’m in. I’m known for being willing publicly to go to the mat on that principle, articulate it, and try to consistently practice it. So that’s… just what I run into.

D: And I would say in large measure I agree with you. The places where I would potentially disagree would be: I’m not certain that we have actually gone to the mat on our principles to the degree that we claim we have. Because we have tolerated aberrant doctrine and immoral behavior in the larger movement, in a way that, in times parallels what they have tolerated for greater good causes.

M: But have we? When you say we have…

D: Jack Hyles preached…

M: but he

D: …in the pulpit in Greenville [SC, near BJU]…

M: Ok.

D: …well after he had preached the eternal humanity of Jesus Christ. Well after people had suspicions about his moral behavior. So I would say yes. We have. Now I don’t think we’re all culpable for that.

M: Right.

D: But my point is to say… but we hold them all culpable for the glitches on the other side.

M: But are our glitches aberrations to what we try to consistently practice. Or, are they frankly what we are known for? At… at… actually…

D: But known to who? To ourselves?

M: No. I would say known to the world.

D: But see, and this would go back to the question of the invitations…

M: You guys on the right need to jump in here!

[laughter]

D: But I mean, but… and… and I’m not… I’m just simply…

B: You can forget about it, Bubba! This is really interesting.

[laughter]

D: You see, I’m… And honestly, I’m just saying if… If you… If we had, for instance… Let’s… let’s, look at this way. There has been for 12 to 14 years a consistent orbit of people who have criticized me on the translation issue.

M: I haven’t.

D: No, I know that.

M: I’m with you.

D: And I was glad you came along because then they jumped on you! So… but, but… so here’s the deal. Um… Let’s say one of those guys decides that they want to come over and say. “Hey, I really want to understand what you believe here”. And then he goes back to his friends and said, “Do you realize we’re the only ones that go talk to Doran and Minnick? Doran and Minnick never invite us over to talk to them.”

M: Who, who’s the…

D: These King James people.

M: Oh, okay.

D: We don’t invite them over. “Hey come on over and learn what we’re thinking here”.

M: I’ve never had one of them do that.

D: Right, but what I’m saying though… The reason would be… is, because we assume they are so hostile to us that they’re not going to… that we’re not going to seek them out. And… and, here are these guys that for twenty or thirty years we’ve been ripping the shreds out of them… And we wonder why they don’t invite us to ask what we think about them! I mean that’s the problem. So… so… so, the reality of it is…

M: I don’t know. I’ve had the shreds ripped out of me!

D: Right.

M: …from people that don’t even know me. So…

D: Right, ok.

M: …on the other side I’m talking about.

D: Yes, I agree. I agree but… what I’m saying though… is that I think logistically, that there’s conversations happening and us going and saying “I think you’re not representing what we believe properly”… is not that they have no interest in it. I don’t think that can be used against them, because we have had… uh… I mean I’ve had… you’ve had conversations, I’ve had conversations with these guys. And… and, all they know about… and I”ll say us… is the the stuff where they’re having their salvation questioned. They’re being accused of… of, apostasy, of aiding apostasy… of all that stuff. And we’re not talking about Billy Graham, and I mean… I’ve never had a conversation with Billy Graham. I’m assuming you haven’t. Maybe you have, I don’t know.

M: [laughs] No.

D: We’re not talking about those guys. We’re talking about the guys that generationally are our age… our age…

[laughter]

D: …and… and all they’ve done is… they’ve grown up… They’ve grown up hearing certain things, and have misconceptions. It doesn’t mean… My answer, to go back to Kevin’s . My answer was to Mark [Dever], “No”. “No I won’t come and preach, and the reason I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken. And your church might be an anomaly in the fellowship that it’s in. But it’s not the the rest and… and I… I’m not comfortable with that.” Now obviously…

M: You took a harder line than I did.

D: Yes, I think I did actually. I mean, and… and that’s I… ah, and I’ll say it the bad way: everyone knows you’re a better Christian than I am.

[laughter]

M: So you are to the right of me!

D: I am. Honestly, I think that’s sort of the weirdness of this thing… it’s that, uh… I actually have, very conservative positions. But those are not, ah… I… What I believe, and what everyone must believe are not exactly the same. And… and, therefore… therefore, I feel like I have to give some latitude for others that disagree with me on some points… ah… that I wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable with, ah… for a variety of reasons that… that we would wrestle through principially and leadership-wise and everything connected to that.

———————————

This marks the end of the answer to that particular question, and the discussion goes on to other questions. I highly recommend you download the audio from the panel discussion.

I thought this section of the discussion was eye-opening and refreshing at the same time. It is a sneak peek at what’s going on as the leaders of today’s fundamentalism think through how to interact and relate with those who don’t claim the label fundamentalism. I think Doran’s explanations were helpful, but I can also see where Minnick is coming from. The best line of it all, I thought, was about how the fundamentalists hold non-fundamentalists culpable for all the bad decisions in their movement, but don’t want to be taken to task for the black sheep among them.

Take a listen to the entire discussion for a fuller sense of what went on, and drop a line to let me know what you think! You can also see a clarification from Doran on what he was getting at in this discussion.

Preserving the Truth Conference: A Success?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

First Baptist Church in Troy, MI hosted a new conference this past week. The Preserving the Truth Conference had over 350 in attendance and included the following main speakers: Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI), Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC) and Chris Anderson (pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH, blogger at My Two Cents). The conference was a “symposium on Biblical separation”.

It seems to be somewhat of a success, with great discussion in the panel session, and hopes that fundamentalism can work through remaining questions on how to implement separation in faithful and careful ways. The concern is how they relate to conservative evangelicals on one hand, and more right-wing fundamentalists on the other. On the one hand, their stated goal is to “[preserve] the truth through careful separation, robust theology, and cultural conservatism”. Yet it seems apparent that the organizers of the conference are hoping to address issues which are problems in the mind of many young fundamentalists who are leaving fundamentalism for greener, conservative evangelical pastures.

Here are some accounts of the conference (which I did not attend).

Here is the link to the audio or written notes from conference workshops and plenary sessions, as well as some additional material contributed for the initiative.

I’m optimistic about this conference, even though I wonder about the defense of “conservatism” as part of the rescue of Fundamentalism. Also the inclusion of multiple peripheral issues as key points related to the preservation of truth and the Fundamentalist movement doesn’t seem to help in stemming the drift of the young people out of fundamentalism. Still questions are being raised and addressed, and some solutions are being offered. Even though I differ with some of their emphases, I’m happy to see things like this happening, and can hope it has a positive impact in the future. I suppose this is happening elsewhere, but I’m happy to report the reformation of fundamentalism continues.

I hope to listen to some of the audio and interact more on this topic in future posts. I’m discussing some of my initial impressions over at Sharper Iron, right now.

Let me know if you were present at the event, or what your take is on it. Was it a success? Or is it the first step toward lasting and positive change?

Together 4 the Gospel: 2010 Conference Audio Up

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just a quick note that the audio for Together 4 the Gospel’s 2010 Conference is now up. I am looking forward to listening to the messages. I hope that some of the breakout sessions and the interview of Matt Chandler will also be available online as well.

You can find the audio and video for streaming and download here: http://t4g.org/resources.

Back at the first T4G conference, I posted the reasons why I am enthusiastic about the idea of Together For the Gospel. You may still enjoy my thoughts from back in 2006. And don’t forget my recent post: “United by the Gospel & Together for the Gospel“. This gives additional reasons on why I think the Gospel should unify us.

Why T4G Should Not Fall Apart Over John Piper’s Connection with Rick Warren

~ Bob Hayton ~ 25 Comments

Background

As I’ve noted previously, John Piper is going to have Rick Warren speak at the Desiring God National Conference this year. And many conservative Bible-believing Christians are very concerned about this. They feel that Rick Warren preaches a watered-down Gospel and that Piper has sold-out on the Gospel by endorsing Warren in this way.

I’ve had blogging friends of mine express deep concern over this decision of my former pastor. I’m aware of at least one pastor who has publicly “separated” from Piper and removed all of his books from their church bookstore in response to this matter. Some fundamentalist bloggers are noting this as yet another example of a lack of discernment on Piper’s part and are encouraging pastors and fundamentalist leaders to not recommend Piper’s works to their congregations.

Now, some are even openly speculating about next week’s Together For the Gospel Conference, and wondering what kind of an impact this will have on the conference. Lou Martuneac a fundamentalist blogger can be quoted on this point:

The revelation of John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God (DG) conference could not have been welcome news for Together for the Gospel (T4G)1 organizers and its key note speakers on the eve of their event. The Piper/Warren issue is sure to be the buzz of the conference. I do not expect anything on the Rick Warren invitation from the platform speakers unless it comes from Piper, which he may feel compelled to address in an attempt to quell the buzz.

The true irony of this year’s T4G is the theme, which is, “The (Unadjusted) Gospel.” Rick Warren is among the high priests of a watered down, non-saving message….

I half-suspect Piper may take the platform at the outset to address the Warren invite. Why? For the purpose of getting it on the table, hashed out and hopefully quelled so that it is not a major lingering distraction during the conference. Nevertheless, there will undoubtedly be a huge buzz on the floor of T4G and in small groups settings throughout the conference….

What will be the reaction of the T4G men: MacArthur, Dever, Sproul, et. al.? I suspect some private attempts to admonish Piper have already taken place. All indications are he (Piper) will reject any admonishment from his brothers. Will there be some public negative reaction from the other T4G men? Will, for the sake of T4G/TGC fellowships, all be forgotten. At T4G will all embrace one another as if nothing is amiss?

Meanwhile, influential bloggers Tim Challies and Justin Taylor have tried to model reserve and charity in this whole debate. Taylor had to shut down comments on his blog due to how bitter and caustic many were. Challies has disagreed with Piper’s decision but also made the following points.

But before I continue, let me offer one more word. John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at the conference is not that big of a deal. It matters, to be sure, but not enough to get too riled up. It’s important that we put it in its proper context. Piper did not invite Robert Schuller or the Dalai Lama, someone who outright denies the Gospel. Warren professes faith in Christ and professes an evangelical understanding of that faith. Furthermore, this conference is Piper’s gig and he is free to invite whomever he wants (or whomever he is permitted within whatever structure there is inside of Desiring God). His house, his rules….

…let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

Doug Wilson has also explained how he thinks about all of this. He has a “wait and see” approach and thinks, we don’t need to “blow into a paper bag” over this. Phil Johnson, while strongly disagreeing with the decision is also concerned over how negative the reactions are to this. He thinks we should not approach this as a cause to separate from Piper in an all-or-nothing sort of way. Johnson was interviewed Tues. and Wed. on Iron Sharpens Iron radio, and the mp3s are available for free download from sharpens.org. [UPDATE: Phil just posted his official response to this on his blog. He has some good things to say which I largely agree with.]

Isn’t this a Big Deal?

Why is it that these leaders and many other less influential theology bloggers (like me) think such an action by Piper is not a big deal? Isn’t supporting someone like Warren a contradiction of the Gospel?

Here are some of the reasons given for thinking this is a big deal:

  • Warren pleases people and adapts his message to suit the audience he’s at. He doesn’t strongly teach or write about repentance – this constitutes a watered-down Gospel.
  • Warren has had Obama come to his church, and has accepted the likes of Robert Schuler. He has given wishy-washy answers on public interviews to questions related to the Gospel.
  • Scripture calls for us to mark and avoid, and separate from those who do not uphold the Gospel. See the following summary of this idea of separation by David Cloud, fundamentalist leader:

We believe that the Bible requires separation from all forms of heresy and ecclesiastical apostasy (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 18:4). We are commanded to try them, mark them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, withdraw ourselves, receive them not, have no company with them, reject them, and separate ourselves from them. The Bible teaches that the course of the church age is characterized by increasing apostasy (2 Timothy 3:1 – 4:6).

When put this way, such a reaction by Piper makes him a disobedient brother who should be separated from. This is the way most who practice secondary separation would think. It’s not that we separate because he chooses not to separate from people we would (as Piper phrased “secondary separation” in his video defense of this decision). Rather, they think Piper’s refusal to separate is disobedience, and 2 Thess. 3:6, 13-15 would urge us to separate from disobedient brothers.

But what about the Gospel?

I contend that the Gospel is a big enough matter to unify around. In fact the separation texts mentioned above particularly apply to a wholesale rejection of the Gospel. It is true “enemies of the cross of Christ” who preach “another gospel” who are to be so rejected. The withdrawal from brothers in Christ, happens primarily in a context of a local church with church discipline. Even then the erring ones are to be “admonished as brothers” not treated like outsiders.

Warren’s pragmatic approach to ministry may be foolhardy. His answers to Gospel-questions given on the spur of the moment in the context of media interviews, may not be as good as we would like. His books are aimed to less well-read readers, those that abound in today’s world. He connects with them, and appeals to a wide range of people. He aims to win them to Christ after he’s disarmed their defensive reaction to Christianity, but from our perspective he may be going too far in a 1 Cor. 9 be “all things to all” policy. His message may not be as theologically precise as we prefer. But he does not deny the Gospel. He affirms it. He preaches it, and he aims to live it out.

Meanwhile, John Piper is very clear about the Gospel and his books promote a Gospel-centered philosophy and world-view. The fellow speakers at T4G (Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, J. Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile) have many traits which could divide them. Varying positions on the charismatic gifts, the nature of baptism, eschatology, church government, music, and even who they “hang out with” (to use Piper’s expression). Some are very suspicious and careful with Mark Driscoll’s ministry style, others have befriended him. Some have chosen not to sign the Manhattan Declaration for important reasons, others see it as a means to encourage the defense of family values in today’s world and have signed it.

All of these differences matter, and these men don’t see eye-to-eye on a host of other concerns. But the speakers at T4G see the Gospel as being so important, that since they all joyfully affirm a rich, robust, Biblical Gospel message, they can allow this union to define them. Rather than being defined by what they are against, or more minor theological differences, they define themselves as being Gospel-driven.

When we separate over every little thing. When we allow personality differences, or just plain differences of opinion spur us on to cast judgment on fellow believers, we have crossed a Biblical line ourselves. More than that, we allow ourselves to be defined by these lesser things, and in so doing minimize the importance of the Gospel.

In closing, let me ask you to ponder the ramifications of the following texts to the current debate:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Rom. 14:4, 10)

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Rom. 15:5-7)

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit””just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call”” one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. (Eph. 4:1-7)

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph. 4:11-16)

Notice the stress on love, humility and gentleness, and the assumption that those differing with us are not enemies but brothers. They shouldn’t be judged, but may need teaching. We should strive for a sincere and edifying unity. This is the measure of the fullness of Christ. May this be our aim and may we all learn some important lessons as we think Biblically about this controversy and aim to react in a Christ-like and gracious way.

Doctrinal Disagreements (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

I just finished listening to the audio from the recent Standpoint Conference held at Southeast Valley Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona this past month. The conference was geared toward “young fundamentalists” and centered on Biblical fellowship (koinonia). Several of the messages were very good, and I plan to share some of my thoughts and commentary in the coming weeks.

The speaker for the last session was Mike Durning (a fellow ShaperIron member). His topic was: “How can Calvinists and not-so-Calvinists have Koinonia?” The message is worth listening to, as he hits on some important issues, particularly with relation to how bitter the Calvinism debate can get.

Toward the end of his message, however, he really hit the nail home. After mentioning that in the Bible church he pastors, at one time both a 5 point Calvinist and a very Arminian-leaning fellow were on the elder board together, he moved on to spell out some thoughts I find very important. I’m sharing my attempt at transcribing this section of the audio. I’ll give you the excerpt and encourage you to get the audio (it’s free) and listen to the whole thing.

Our church has been home to charismatics before. We politely insist that they not speak or pray in their imagined heavenly language. If they despair at someone for going to a doctor or, you know, they try to say that all sickness is of the devil, then we instruct them and if necessary we’d ask them to leave. But why close the door to helping someone grow in their understanding of Scripture?

We even had a charismatic on our board of deacons before, which is saying something because I preach against charismaticism a whole lot more then I would ever touch the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. What’s wrong with them being with us, though? They worship with us, they hear the Word, why cut them off?

Our church has been home to historic a-mil guys, pre-trib pre-mil guys and everything in between. Our church has been home to dispensationalists and covenant theologians. Our church is home to both cessationists and some soft-cessationists, a few non-cessationists.

Do we have a taught position? Sure. And some of these things I teach far more firmly then I teach the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. But those who truly know Christ and show up are welcome. And they’re our brothers and sisters.

Listen guys, once we know we’re dealing with believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. Did you catch that? If we know they’re believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. That’s the mindset.

You don’t have to march in lock-step with me to worship at my side. You don’t have to cow-tow to my view point to sit in my pew. You don’t have to agree with all things that I believe in order to work with me.

Is there a standard? Sure. Is unity based on a core of doctrine and practice? Sure. But to insist on 100% conformity to my viewpoint in order to fellowship, is arrogance — not separatism.

So, what do you think? I for one, think he is absolutely correct (when it comes to secondary matters). Let me know if you agree or disagree.