Tag: Fundamentalism

Ephesians 3 & 4 on Unity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been involved in an online discussion recently on the topic of unity and separation. And I’m finding once again, that for many fundamentalists (surprise), even convincing them that unity with other believers outside a local church is not strictly optional is proving a hard sell.

I won’t bore you with the entire discussion (although some may find it helpful). I will however, take the occasion to share some thoughts on how Ephesians 3 and 4 make a strong case for the idea that unity with other believers is urged upon us in light of our mutual membership in the universal church, which is Christ’s body.

…I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol’ American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it’s little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the “essential fact of unity” bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.

Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I’ll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.

Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the “one body” of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious “eternal purpose” of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.

Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.

Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).

Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.

Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ’s gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.

Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it’s local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to “the unity of the faith”, and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experiencing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.

I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Christ and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.

Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it’s easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It’s easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?

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?

Fellowship and the Evangelical Spectrum by Kevin Bauder

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In Kevin Bauder’s latest article, he discusses the nitty-gritty details of how fellowship and separation pan out in his view. This is the culmination of a long series of articles on the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. I think quoting his conclusions at some length here, would be helpful for my readers, but I encourage you to go read the entire post.

Finally we come to the hard part. I have been writing about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. In the process, I have tried to articulate briefly a vision of Christian fellowship and separation. This vision involves a boundary (the gospel), outside of which no Christian fellowship is possible. It also involves a center, the whole counsel of God. Increasing levels of fellowship necessarily index to this center.

In my thinking, separation is simply the absence of fellowship. Outside of the boundary, separation is absolute. No Christian recognition should ever be given. Inside the boundary, separation is decided by the extent to which we Christians mutually hold the faith (the whole counsel of God) in its integrity.

Even among fundamentalists, certain separations are unavoidable. These separations are forced upon us when we cannot jointly hold the whole counsel of God in its integrity. In that sense, each separation includes some element of censure. Nevertheless, separation at one level does not necessarily require separation at every other level. Nor do these separations necessarily require that we adopt a contemptuous attitude toward one another. To the contrary, separations can and usually should be carried out with grace and charity.

At the risk of publicly embarrassing a friend, let me cite an example. Some years ago, God in His grace allowed me to make the acquaintance of Dr. Michael Barrett, president of Geneva Reformed Seminary. Dr. Barrett is a committed Presbyterian, while I am a Baptist by conviction. He is a covenant theologian (though a premillennialist), while I am a dispensationalist (though hardly of the Hal Lindsey variety).

It should go without saying that Dr. Barrett and I find our fellowship limited in a number of areas. Both our ecclesiology and our eschatology differ at important points. He is not going to ask me to lecture on baptism and I am not going to ask him to make speeches about pretribulationism.

More importantly, we cannot be pastors in the same church. Dr. Barrett probably could not in good conscience pastor a church that strictly forbade infant baptism. I could not pastor a church that allowed it. Consequently, Dr. Barrett and I are not likely to plant any churches together.

In other words, we separate from one another. We separate in every area that requires a commitment to those areas of eschatology or ecclesiology over which we differ. We cannot cooperate in any way that would require either of us to surrender his obedience (as he understands it) to Christ.

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that Dr. Barrett and I see one another as enemies or even opponents. Far from it. When it comes to an understanding of the beauty of holiness, of the majesty of God and the mercy of the Savior, of the importance of gracious affections and the role of sober worship, I find that I have far more in common with Dr. Barrett than I do with most Baptists or dispensationalists.

For the sake of those things, I have a deep respect and love for Dr. Barrett, and I am convinced that he reciprocates. Each of us shares concerns with the other that we share with few other people. We pray for one another. Both of us yearn for God’s best blessings in the ministry of the other. Most germanely, we are committed to fellowshipping and collaborating wherever it is legitimately possible.

To put it baldly, I grieve to be separated from Mike at any level. I see our separation as an evil, and I yearn for the day when our fellowship will be utterly unhindered. If there were a legitimate way of overcoming that separation now, I would pursue it.

Our separation is an evil (an evil circumstance, not an evil act), but it is a necessary evil in view of the alternatives. One alternative would be for one of us to abandon his commitment to obeying Christ. The other alternative would be for us to pretend hypocritically that we are not divided in those areas where divisions really exist. I would sin against Dr. Barrett by asking him to do either of these things.

Until one of us can convince the other of the error of his ways (not a likely prospect at this point in our lives), Dr. Barrett and I will continue to separate from one another where we must. We will also fellowship and work together where we can. We will do both to the glory of God, precisely because we care about one another.

This ought to be our attitude toward all fundamentalists with whom we differ. Indeed, it ought to be our attitude toward all other Christians who stand in some degree of error. We ought to separate where we must, fellowship where we can, and love one another withal.

In my opinion, the now-old new evangelicals were guilty of a very serious error. It was as serious as a Christian can commit. I also believe that hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of errors that are (nearly?) as serious. Very few levels exist at which I can overtly cooperate with exemplars of either group. Fellowship in both instances is severely truncated. Nevertheless, I find leaders in each group who challenge me spiritually and whose examples (at least in limited areas) I wish to emulate. Furthermore, where they are obedient to the Lord and genuinely trying to serve Him, I want them to succeed.

Other fundamentalists do not necessarily draw the lines where I do…. [and] might very well choose to separate from me. That, too, is part of the judgment that they must make, and I must grant them liberty to make it. I am not the one to whom they will answer.

For my part, the dictum is pretty simple. Let us separate where we must. Let us fellowship where we can. Let us love one another withal.

Please do read the whole thing as he includes even more practical examples as to specific decisions he’s had to make. Oh, and plan to read his entire 24 part series while you’re at it! I like the vision of separation and fellowship that Bauder gives. I’m not so sure absence of fellowship entails everything Scripture says of separation, however. Let me know your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks.

Fellowship Redefined: David Cloud, Mark Dever and the Fundamentalist Notion of “Partnership”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 62 Comments

David Cloud has out done himself. As king of the fundamentalist “dirt alert” squad, Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong. They cared about the fundamentals of the faith, as something to rally around and unite over. They actually stood by the age-old maxim: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” Imagine that! Boy were they duped. There is no such thing as a non-essential, don’t you know. Rom. 14 and Matt. 23:23 not withstanding.

Cloud has an article entitled “In Essentials Unity”, where he quotes disapprovingly many wise comments from other fundamentalists, like Charles Keen and Clayton Reed, who are waking up to the fact that standing with a brother for the gospel doesn’t imply a wholesale endorsement of every single doctrinal position he may espouse. In fact we can appreciate the contributions of those who differ with us on less important points. Cloud however disagrees, saying, “I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as ‘non-essential’ or to ‘stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals’.”

I have previously spelled out my thoughts on how important it is to accept that the Gospel and other core doctrinal truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at it!

My point in this post, however, is to seize on a small bit of Cloud’s post which speaks volumes about how he and many other fundamentalists think about “fellowship” and “partnership”. This actually might reveal why Cloud and his disciples find themselves so far afield from their fundamentalist forebears.

Cloud brings up Calvary Baptist Seminary’s upcoming National Leadership Conference where they (a fundamentalist institution), will be inviting Mark Dever to be their keynote speaker. Dever, of course, is a leading conservative evangelical, who is not a fundamentalist insider, and certainly not acceptable for fellowship of any kind in Cloud’s book. Here is how Cloud lets us know this problem as to Dever’s credentials:

…and New Evangelical Southern Baptist Mark Dever in 2010. (Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, which is partnered with the very liberal American Baptist Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Baptist World Alliance. For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “Partners.”)

In Cloud’s mind, Dever’s association with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention makes his case even more egregious. Not only is he a “new evangelical” and a Southern Baptist, but he is “partnered with” the liberal organizations listed above.

What struck me about this is how completely far off the mark Cloud is in this assertion. Mark Dever is known throughout Christian circles as a conservative’s conservative in many respects. He defends substitutionary atonement and stands for a complementarian position on women in ministry, and he is certainly a champion of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dever encourages a very local-church-centric philosophy of ministry, and has some of the best resources available for Biblical church life. Before I go on to defend Dever, the charges against him are actually going to get worse.

Perhaps as a result of some feedback, Cloud recently sent out two clarifying emails about this statement, through his Fundamental Baptist Information Service newsletter. The second clarification expands on the original statement:

In the article “In Essentials Unity,” December 7, 2010, I made the following statement:

“Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is also a member of the liberal American Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the horribly apostate National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.”

I have been challenged on this, as the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s web site only lists its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

While Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not a member of the American Baptist Church directly, it is definitely partnered with the ABC, as well as the very liberal Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by dint of its membership in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention.

For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “DCBC Directory of Churches” and “Partner Organizations.”

Tod Brainard, author of “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” The Projector, Fall 2010, wrote to me on December 8 as follows:

“Before the publication of my article I contacted the DC Baptist Association in Washington to verify Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s membership with them. The DC Baptist director told me personally that Capitol Hill Baptist Church was a paying member of the association and current on their dues. He further indicated that they had not questioned or expressed concerns over the DC Baptist Association affiliates including all those listed in my article. By the way, Jesse Jackson is a member of the National Baptist Association [which is partnered with the DC Baptist Association].”

In “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” Pastor Brainard wrote:

“Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention; and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which are both blatantly apostate. In addition the American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church).

“It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together. To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive. Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. ”

———-

I cut off the article at that point where it continues to expound on the perceived dangers of such awful associations and partnerships and where all this can lead. From staunch conservative, Mark Dever has now been transformed into a closet Roman Catholic who collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity! Better be careful what kind of perceived associations fundamentalists will find in you!

Now for the killer. All of this is just a bunch of hooey. The only thing that is true is that Dever’s church is a member of the DCBC. But not a paying member, nor a compliant member. In fact, years ago, Dever led the charge in the SBC to defund the DCBC from any national convention dollars due to their liberal ties. Dever’s church in fact does not pay dues to the DCBC, in fact they don’t even charge dues, they just accept free will offerings (which Dever’s church does not send their way).

A contact of mine at Dever’s church, verified that the church secretary has been receiving calls about this and just this week called the DCBC to verify that they haven’t received funds from Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Dever’s church). In fact, CHBC is on a list of “non-contributing” member churches. The church is in the DC and perhaps there is some benefit to being listed in the DCBC listings. But their “membership” is anything but a complicit involvement in apostasy!

This account is documented in Christianity Today which did a story on the controversy surrounding the DC Baptist Convention and their defunding by the SBC national convention. Here are some quotes from CT documenting Dever’s stance to all of this:

Most area pastors line up with the local convention. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not among them.

“They [DCBC] are presenting this as a political move,” Dever says. “But these agreements presume a common understanding of our purpose. I would encourage the SBC not to give a penny to the D.C. convention.”

…

Dever believes the district convention has a confused theology.

“There’s no personal animus,” Dever says. “That’s what I keep hearing from the DCBC, like somebody’s out to get them. I don’t think they have a good category for genuine theological disagreement.”

So the record is plain for all to see, Dever is not partnering with the DCBC in any theological sense. But David Cloud and his like, see it differently. Any membership or association of any kind, entails a complete agreement, not only of the association itself, but all the associations each group has which is associated with the other group. I don’t see how most of those Baptist groups are really and truly connected in spirit with the Pontiff of Rome. But the fundamentalist notion of “partnership” can magically make this happen.

This isn’t just a crazy story. This isn’t just a ludicrous blunder by Cloud. This is a travesty of Christian fellowship. If this is how we treat fellow ministers of the Gospel, woe be to us! Such foolishness crowds out the Gospel, which becomes just another hill we will die on. With the Gospel as “just another doctrine”, we lose a Christ-centered, Gospel-rooted faith. The result is a schismatic, piety which is no one’s true friend. And grace is left out of the mix. I’ll close with some wise words of old, from the Puritan, Thomas Manton (commenting on Phil. 3:15):

…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.

Quotes to Note 22: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Altar Calls

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

When asked if Scripture justifies the use of public invitations (altar calls) or not, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones responded quite directly.

“The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit….

…I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.”

You can read the entire response by Dr. Lloyd-Jones on this subject over at Banner of Truth [HT: Aaron Sauer]. Also be sure to check out a few posts I’ve done related to this issue, of the “altar call”: