Tag: IFBx

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.

Download My Interview on Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been getting great feedback on my recent interview with Understanding Our Times Radio, and Kevin Thompson. Kevin graduated from Pensacola Christian College in 2002 and so he is also intimately familiar with some of the more extreme elements of fundamentalism.

The interview covered a wide range of topics relating to fundamentalism, including the following: What is fundamentalism? What is good about fundamentalism? What about separation? Wrong views of the Gospel and salvation. Why Reformed Theology is attracting many young fundamentalists. Why people are leaving fundamentalism, and more.

I believe I covered a lot of ground in that 30 minute interview and it would serve as an excellent introduction to my blog and the problem of extreme fundamentalism. I’m thankful for the opportunity to speak about this subject that is close to my heart.

Right-click on the down arrow to the right and select “save target as” or “save link as”, to download the mp3 file. Or listen online at Kevin’s radio site. Also, consider tuning in to Understanding Our Radio on a weekly basis for more interesting content.

News Flash: Tune in to an Interview of Bob Hayton on the Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Broadcast with Chris Arnzen

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Interview Details: Live
call-in radio broadcast
Date: Monday 3/8/10
Time: 6-7pm EST / 5-6pm CST
Host: Chris Arnzen
Interviewee: Bob Hayton
Subject: Reforming
Fundamentalism through
Reformed Theology
Station: WNYG-1440 AM
On-Line: www.rcnam.com
& click “Long Island 1440 AM”

 

I’ll be LIVE on the air with Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron radio, on Monday 3/8 at 6pm EST / 5pm CST. Here is the teaser that Chris is sending out about the interview. Please tune in and feel free to call in with your questions or comments.

Bob Hayton, founder of Fundamentally Reformed (see www.FundamentallyReformed.com), will address the theme: “Reforming Fundamentalism Through Reformed Theology”.

Bob is a former Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB), who now embraces Reformed Theology. He blogs to: 1) spread a passion for Jesus Christ, 2) help people harmed by extreme fundamentalism, 3) encite wider reform in fundamentalism & beyond, and 4) defend his theological positions. Bob also operates the “King James Only?” blog spot, the King James Only Research Center web site and other helpful blog spots and web sites.

According to our guest, Bob Hayton, “Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny. For instance, it is an assumed thing that the Bible will not actually be shown to teach Calvinism, post-tribulational rapture, or covenant theology. So anyone who would espouse one of these positions or another similar position is immediately identified as a heretic and the church never actually carefully reviews what the Bible says on the matter…

“Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints… while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition…”

Tune or log into this live, controversial, call-in broadcast and learn how Bob Hayton discovered and made the journey to embrace Reformed Theology, the *truly* old “Old Time Religion”.

To call in with questions, dial 631-482-8300. You can listen live to the broadcast at www.rcnam.com [you will have to click “Long Island 1440 AM”]. And the audio file will be freely available soon at sharpens.org.

Becca’s Story

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I continue to hear from readers about how the story of my journey out of extreme fundamentalism has been a blessing to them.   From time to time, my readers share some of their own stories.   Recently, a young woman named Becca shared her story with me, and I received permission from her to share it with you all.   May it be a blessing and encouragement to you all.

2/12/2010

Bob,

I am twenty-three years old. I was born into a IFB family with all the fixins’. My parents were strongly KJV only; no secular music whatsoever was allowed in our household. We attended church every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday. I was in Patch the Pirate Club. I can remember my dad railing over and over again about “secular” music, the “world’s” music, and he had books about the beat of the music causing one’s heart to beat irregularly. I am surprised I got away with wearing pants. That was a non-issue, usually, with my parents, although my mom did tell me once that she wished she’d raised me to wear skirts only. My previous pastor was once noted for having said that parents would rue the day they allowed their daughters to wear pants. I have never worn pants to a church service at that church before.

I was “saved” at the age of four. I remembered bits and pieces, but did not remember what I prayed or really remembering I was a sinner. Thus, for years upon years, even when I was in college, I doubted my salvation. What if I wasn’t really saved because I didn’t mean what I’d said at the age of four? I went off to the WILDS (summer camp) of Brevard, NC, where my counselor told me that if I couldn’t remember my salvation experience and was having doubts, then I probably wasn’t saved. I was incapacitated by fears of eternal damnation.

All of my childhood and teenage years were spent observing rules and regulation imposed by my IFB church. I knew nothing of God, but everything about what I “should” be doing. I was strongly KJV only, but I couldn’t defend my reasons behind it. I was strongly against secular music, but probably couldn’t have given reasons why. By the age of nineteen, I realized I had built concrete walls on a foundation of sand. I had no logical reason for any of the convictions I held.

When did the turnaround occur? When I went to college. My parents were hoping I’d choose PCC, but I couldn’t wear skirts all the time and it wasn’t accredited. I chose to attend Clearwater Christian, the small, accredited university on the Gulf Coast. Dad wasn’t thrilled “they allow handholding!” and a visiting evangelist had told Dad that he would never advise anyone to attend CCC. Nevertheless, I had liked what I’d seen when I visited there and it was only by the grace of God that he led me there. The school changed my life.

CCC is conservative, yes. It is fundamental. But it is not “fundamentalist,” in the derogatory sense of the word. It is Scriptural, but it couldn’t be compared to a terrorist regime in the standards it holds. At first, when I discovered that the girls I lived with had versions of the Bible that weren’t KJV, I wrote them off. Little by little, when I saw my godly Bible professors using other versions, I gave them a chance. Finally, I broke down and bought an ESV. It was also at CCC that I was truly introduced to Reformed Theology. RT had always been referred to in my circle as being not biblical or even heretical. My mom said, “I can’t accept that God would die for me and not my daughter” (my sister). I was, surprise, surprise, strongly opposed to Reformed Theology, although, once again, I could not back up my beliefs against my more knowledgeable friends. My parents and my church had raised a child with a delicate egg shell of beliefs; on the outside, the shell looked nice, but if it developed the slightest crack, the whole thing would crumble because there was no support on the interior of that shell. My ESV Bible made the clarity and the flow of the words so much clearer and cleaner; for the first time, the Bible was real to me. The more I read, the more I stumbled upon words like “chosen,” “drawn,” “gift,” “grace,” “mercy,” “God wills,” “hardens,” and the whole shebang of those words that make up the “Calvinist’s Dictionary.” I couldn’t ignore these words, however. They were there after all. I read them and reread them in context and they presented truths which I could not deny: the sovereignty of God, his mercy, his love, his ultimate glory. I walked away from reading, came back later. The truths were still there and again, they were undeniable. My professors and our chapel speakers backed up these truths and little by little, I was drawn into the beauty of Reformed Theology. When I finally accepted it fully, I was awestruck. My doubts were taken away for no longer did I need to place what little hope I had in that wimpy prayer I prayed as a four year old. My full trust was put in Christ alone. I was awakened to what “grace” really meant. I saw Christ as he really was. No longer, no longer was I entrenched in doubt, guilt out of not meeting the standard, fear of hell’s fires…. For the first time, I began learning about Christ, not about what I should be/shouldn’t be doing.

Now, as a twenty-three-year old, one year out of college, teaching, I am a full-blown Calvinist. . . .or, “Biblicist.” I attend a Reformed Presbyterian church. I wear pants to services. I have high-lighted and annotated my ESV until the pages are soft. I keep finding new references to being “drawn” to Christ. I am finding music that backs up my theology. I am reading Piper. And I have never been more in love with Christ, more on fire for Him, more wanting to scream my new-found freedom from the rooftops. When I was entrenched in the IFB circle, I was shallow, foundationless, searching, confused, disoriented. I was fully confident in nothing at all. However, by God’s grace, I have now been led into the light of His glorious Gospel, and I thank God for opening up my eyes to the truth. I wish everyone could know what I know and I am so happy to have found your site because you do know what I know; you have found what I found. Aren’t you grateful? I am.