Tag: conservative

Three Historic Approaches to Separation

~ Bob Hayton

Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”

Three Approaches to Separatism

Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.

First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.

Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.

Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.

What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)

I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.

R.W. Glenn on Reducing the Christian Faith to a Lifestyle

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes by R.W. GlennR.W. Glenn packs his small book on the Beatitudes full of grace-filled, gospel-centered wisdom. I posted my brief review of Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes (Shepherd Press, 2013) earlier this week. Today I want to provide an excerpt where Glenn confronts a problem that is prevalent among conservative evangelical Christians.

“Reducing the Christian faith to a lifestyle” — Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are perhaps most famous for this trait, but a number of other evangelical groups have this tendency as well. In our zeal for protecting children from the evils of this world, and in our desire to live holy lives we sometimes turn faith into a religion, and the gospel into a sub-culture replete with its own rules and customs. Nostalgia for the good old days when sinful lifestyles weren’t on full display in public, and a fondness for large families and wholesome fun — these can be good things, but they can also define us. The problem comes when our familiar way of life, holy as it may be, becomes what we live for and what is most important to us. It takes the place of the gospel and the role of Christian doctrine, and this lifestyle-orientation can keep our kids from true Christianity. But don’t hear just my word for it. Listen to R.W. Glenn as he bemoans this same tendency, which we all should be on guard against.

In a post-Christian culture like ours where many regard moderate religiosity as a good thing, the danger for the church is to reduce the Christian faith to a lifestyle — a subculture complete with its own music and literature and fashions and jargon. This is especially dangerous for those who grow up in the church. Christian parents sometimes worry about their kids being influenced by worldly evils in our oversexed, violent, materialistic culture. They worry that their kids will be negatively influenced by the literature they read, the movies and television shows they watch, the video games they play, and the music they listen to.

Although these things are certainly not benign and do have the capacity to negatively influence children, they are not half as dangerous as reducing Christianity to moralistic religion. These kinds of Christian parents focus on relatively small matters and ignore the possibility of a much more terrible reality. Because it seems so likely that our churched children and teens would remain loyal to the church all their days and live very moral lives, we tend not to worry about them, but their very religiosity makes them even more susceptible to get crushed by the hurricanes of their own sin and the schemes of Satan than a bare house in the path of a Category 5 hurricane….

…if churched children remain unaffected by and inoculated to the gospel — wholesale consumers of just enough gospel lingo and institutional Christianity to look the part — they will completely miss the heart of Christianity. They will miss out on purity of heart. (Kindle Loc. 1359-1372)

I’m interested to hear what you think. Is this tendency a problem? Can you see how it subtly leads us from a gospel-centered Christianity?

Learn more about R.W. Glenn’s new book by reading my review or perusing the product page at Amazon.com or Shepherd Press.

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

Dr. Russell Moore: A Gospel-Centered Response to the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood

~ Bob Hayton

Dr. Russell Moore struck gold in his comments Friday on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s reversal of their decision to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. I really appreciated his viewpoint and wanted to share some of his article posted on Christianity Today here.

Some pro-life persons might wish that the Christian churches had as much influence in the public arena as Planned Parenthood, that we were able to mobilize as many callers and threaten as many boycotts. Some might see this as a sign that we need more money and respect. After all, if some Christian foundation had more financial firepower than Planned Parenthood, Komen might have stood firm…

In all of this, though, we can gain an opportunity to see what the abortion culture is all about: cash. Planned Parenthood and their allies use the thoroughly American language of freedom of choice and women’s empowerment, but what’s at stake, as seen here, are billions of dollars…

The answer for those of us who cherish the lives of women and their children, regardless of stage of development, isn’t to long to compete with Planned Parenthood in the influence that comes with massive amounts of wealth. It’s instead to see, first of all, how our own captivity to Mammon devolves us in the same way…

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.

What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth….

And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

Let’s stop highlighting how God “blesses” the millionaire who tithes. Let’s stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God’s blessing. Let’s show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.

Planned Parenthood has won this one. They spent a lot of money, and they’ll make a lot of money. And they’ll do so off the shredded corpses of children and the raped consciences of women. If Jesus’ kingdom were of this world, we’d be fundraising to keep up with them.

But what we have is greater than that. We have a word that tells a pregnant young woman that we believe her Down Syndrome baby is a gift, not a health care burden. And we can offer the kind of gospel that cleanses the conscience and offers what outlasts money and power: life and that to the uttermost.

Let’s work to legally protect women and children. And let’s grieve that old Mammon has won the day, again. But let’s not grieve like the pagans who have no hope. When it comes to the struggle for life, the color of victory isn’t pink like a ribbon. It’s red like a cross. [Read the full article]

Our Attitude toward Homosexuals

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Following my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zondervan), I plan on discussing a few additional resources on thinking through this topic from a Christian perspective. Don’t forget too, about entering the giveaway for a free copy of Hill’s book compliments of Zondervan.

Today, I wanted to give an excerpt from a helpful booklet from Wheaton College entitled Understanding Homosexuality. Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian (Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus, Wheaton College) challenges the Christian Church on our attitude toward homosexuals at the conclusion of his article in the above mentioned booklet “Part 1: Biblical and Theological Understanding”.

Dr. Bilezikian’s concerns are especially poignant for the more conservative side of evangelicalism. Many fundamental Baptists seem to have such a view of homosexuality by default. It’s easy for any of us to stoop to this perspective. I hope these remarks, however, can help us be careful not to despise homosexuals but rather be positioned to actually serve them as Christ would.

And now a word to the rest of us who are not battling homosexuality. I suppose we represent a broad variety of attitudes, from thoughtless unconcern to violent revulsion. Both of these extremes are sinful. The biblical command, regarding our response to a brother or sister who struggles with a problem we do not have is for the strong to help the weak””neither indifference nor rejection, but the extension of God’s redemptive and restoring love. Particularly grievous among Christians is the sin of homophobia””the hatred of homosexuals, a judgmental, censorious spirit expressed in ridicule, queer jokes, impersonation of gay mannerisms, macho stories of gay-bashing.

I would like Christ himself to speak to this kind of attitude as he does in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7. “Judge not, that you be not judged.” An absolute, categorical prohibition on the part of Jesus. Can’t we make exceptions in the case of gays? Isn’t that sin bad enough so we can allow ourselves to judge? It’s as if Jesus were saying, “Read my lips! Judge not.” And that is exactly what he means, “Judge not.” In fact, Paul adds to this as he says in I Corinthians, chapter 5, verses 11-12, “Don’t even judge outsiders, because that is God’s business. You are not in the business of judging. You take care of yourself and of your community.” And Christ adds a warning, “So that you will not be judged.” In other words, the same harshness that you apply to your judging will be applied to your sins. The Scripture reminds us that judgment is without mercy to those who have shown no mercy. And Jesus gives reasons for his absolute prohibition, “for with the judgments you pronounce, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you’ll get.” He says there is no double standard with God. With us, there is. We have a tendency to be hard on others, easy on ourselves. Not with God!

The second reason, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye but do not see the log which is in your eye?” What is your real motivation for judging? It indicates that you have problems yourself and that you are trying to mask them with this kind of diversionary tactic by your attacks on other people. Often most hate-filled critics of homosexuals are people who feel insecure about their own sexuality.

And the third reason Jesus gives for not judging is, “How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye when there is a log in your own eye?” This question addresses the issue of competency. Are you competent to judge? Do you know what is going on in the soul of that brother or that sister? Can you identify the composites of their background, understand their upbringing, the decisions that have been made in the past, identify with their compulsions, with the intensity of their addictions? Can you understand that? In I Corinthians, chapter 4, verse 5, the apostle Paul tells us that God can do that because he knows the secrets in the hearts of humans. But can you stand in someone else’s shoes, and can you say, “I would have done better under the same circumstances” ? What is the proper attitude? Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” He says, “First take care of yourself. Clean up your act, and when you are righteous, you may address your brother. Only then, may you take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” You will not judge but help the person.

And there are different ways of helping the person. There are patterns in the Scriptures for exhorting each other, for rebuking each other on an individual basis first, and then getting the community involved, and confronting in love. When that doesn’t work, the offending person becomes to us “like a publican and a Gentile,” said Jesus (Matt. 18: 15-17). What does that mean? Jesus loved Gentiles and publicans. He ministered to them, and he died for them. So this doesn’t mean we are supposed to reject them. It means that we make the redeeming love of God real to them. We start again from the ground up, from square one. We don’t give up. God is not in the business of rejecting people. He wants all people to be saved because they matter to him. Each one of us needs to present himself or herself before God, whether we are struggling with this problem or with another problem which may be just as grievous in the eyes of God as homosexuality.

We need to confess to God that we are all partakers in fallen humanity, and that we are often stuck in our sinful state. Sometimes our sins are flagrant, sometimes they are hidden in the secret places of our souls. We need to confess the sins that pertain to the misuse of our sexuality, one way or the other, even the sins that pertain to our thought life. The apostle Paul put in the same category the sin of homosexuality and those of greed and reviling. Some of us have to confess that by reviling homosexuals we have entered that same category of gravity of offense before God.

We need to come to God as a community but also as individuals. We must ask him to search our hearts and to cause us grief where there is need for repentance. But we need also to remember that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And yet, if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [emphasis added]