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?
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’.”
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.
Often I labor to reply to important questions in the comments on my blog, only to have my thoughts buried and hidden in the weeds, so to speak. So I thought I would craft today’s reply into a post.
I’ve been debating with Pastor Kent Brandenburg on the appropriateness of ranking doctrines as fundamental/essential and secondary/tertiary. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, and our obligations to hold to sound doctrine and separate from those who don’t. I side with Mohler, as well as John Piper and D.A. Carson (and others), and recently posted my belief that excessive separation actually belittles the Gospel.
In the debate, which has included “Grace” defending my view, and “Truth Unites…and Divides” who recently joined the fray, three basic points have been raised against my view. This “ranking” of doctrines is a new-fangled doctrine, it finds no support in Scripture, and it ignores the Biblical call for separation from false doctrine. I will respond briefly to all these points, yet major on the first one.
A couple qualifications are in order. First, I unequivocally affirm that we are obligated to obey all of God’s commands and accept all of Scripture as authoritative. Whatever God teaches in His Word, we must believe and obey. However, Scripture teaches that we are fallible and fallen creatures. And God-given common sense affirms that good people disagree and fail to understand one another on any number of subjects. People vary in terms of their backgrounds, intellectual prowess, and even how they reason and learn. So it is no wonder that good Christians often disagree on various points of doctrines. Is it a sin to be wrong? My answer is “not necessarily”. I believe on some issues like Baptism, for instance, good Christians out of a desire to follow Christ, and with Scriptural reasoning and proofs, hold to an incorrect view of Baptism (only 1 view can be the truth) and yet are not guilty of conscious sin.
A second qualification relates to the importance of doctrine. In affirming the primacy of fundamental doctrines, I am not negating the importance of secondary and even tertiary ones. As my own church’s elder affirmation of faith (one of our elders is John Piper) affirms, it is right and good to hold firmly to secondary doctrines and yet still pass beyond those boundaries and extend Christian fellowship at appropriate times. There are different purposes for various organizations and there are different levels of fellowship [1]. When I am warning against “excessive separation”, I am specifically aiming at an extreme sectarianism which allows little to no fellowship at all with any but those who agree on virtually every point of doctrine and practice.
A New Doctrine?
Does the concept of “the fundamentals” stem from the fundamentalist controversy of the late 1800s, early 1900s? Is it a new doctrine that carefully cloaks a reductionist view of Christianity? Is it all about cutting the Bible down to size so we can comfortably hold to the essentials while living how we please?
Frankly, no. The idea of fundamental non-negotiables can be seen as far back as the Apostle’s Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and so on. Perhaps it can be traced back even more. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and her treatment of church dogma and papal bulls as equal in authority with Scripture, it is no surprise that a complete unanimity of doctrinal belief was levied on one and all. But with the Reformation, the concept of fundamentals of the faith which are necessary for salvation, was once again advanced.
Many Protestant writers grappled with this concept in the 16 and 1700s, as they sought to explain how Protestantism can enjoy real unity across denominational lines yet without Roman Catholicism’s unanimity. I came across an article in an online Catholic encyclopedia which details the key figures in the ongoing debate on this subject between the RCC and Protestantism. Of course the article is written from a Catholic perspective, but it makes clear that both the concept and the phrasing “fundamentals” were used almost from the very onset of the Reformation.
Further historical proof is this article on John Wesley, which shows he also held to a fundamental approach. He emphasized a “catholic (i.e. universal) spirit” and sought to have unity with other Christians despite differences on what he termed “opinions” (see especially section 3). Additionally, John MacArthur draws heavily from Herman Witsius’ Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (from the mid 1600s) as he discusses this very issue in his book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a summary from the above book.
Is It Scriptural?
My critics claim this doctrine has no basis in Scripture. I grant that it is largely inferred from Scripture. Yet such inference doesn’t necessarily render it moot. More on that later.
I recently cited a list of commentaries proving that the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3 “first of all” (KJV) or “of first importance” (ESV) [same Greek words here: en protois] can refer to importance rather than time-order. In fact the conservative Greek scholar A.T. Robertson asserted this. My list also showed that this is no new interpretation of that verse, as several older commentators like Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry understood this verse as teaching that the Gospel is “of first importance”.
Scripture goes on to explain the Gospel as being chiefly important. Paul wanted to preach nothing but Christ crucified, and vowed to boast only in the cross. This certainly implies that the Gospel is the main and most important thing.
Jesus similarly held that on the greatest and second-greatest commandment (to love God, and to love one’s neighbor) all the law and the prophets hinged (Matt. 22:34-40). He further taught that God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 12:7; see also in a similar vein, David’s assertion in Ps. 51:16).
Matt. 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law” as the ESV phrases it. The Pharisees were scrupulously tithing of their herbs, yet were neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness”. The word “weightier” can signify either “burdensome/difficult” or “weighty/important”. Calvin interpreted the passage with the latter idea–justice, mercy, and faithfulness were “principal points of the Law” and tithing was “inferior” in comparison. And indeed, the smallness of the herbs in question seems to point to the triviality of their scruples in comparison with these more important matters. Such is a common interpretation of the passage today (see D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set, as but one example).
These specific proof texts are coupled with arguments that MacArthur explains at length. Scripture explicitly ties certain doctrines with eternal life, and more strongly condemns deviation from others. D.A. Carson, in a lecture on doctrinal causes for divisions in churches (obtainable here for 99 cents), illustrates how in 1 Corinthians, Paul responds in varying degrees to different doctrinal problems. He most strongly reacts to the resurrection question, and the communion problem, as well as the expulsion of the wayward brother. But his reactions to other problems are tempered and more moderate. Obviously this plays in with how important Paul sees the various doctrines in view. Again, I encourage you to read Carson’s entire lecture (transcript) on this point.
Suffice it to say that Scripture generally conveys the idea of a varying level of importance of doctrines. And while this is generally inferred, it remains valid. The Gospel is chiefly important. And doesn’t common sense confirm this? Who would disagree that the Gospel is not most important? Can we not find cause for fellowship/participation in the gospel with our fellow believers? Are not the commands to have unity and avoid schisms in the church important?
What about Separation?
This article has run on too much to discuss this point in depth. I need to treat this at length in the future. For now suffice it to say that every time “doctrine” is mentioned as important, are we to conclude every single particular point that Paul taught? Or the chief body of truths over which we are to contend: the faith once delivered? Many times the separation passages explicitly attach themselves either to a denial of the Gospel, or sinful practice. And while we talk of separation we must talk of unity too. Even in Rom. 16, Paul tells us to separate from the contentious and divisive among us! So unity is so important we should separate over it. Paradoxical thinking, I dare say.
I know that one’s view of the church comes into play here as well. Some Baptists hold that only a local church is revealed in Scripture. No universal church idea exists. Such a view is a minority and I believe a stretch, even for Baptists. Most do not hold to this view. And those who do, often act as if each local church is totally independent and doesn’t need anyone else for anything. I submit a faithful reading of the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, does not permit such thinking.
Hopefully this will end the debate around here for a while, until I open up the subject at a later time.
Footnote:
[1] See also “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?”, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]), pg. 365. Chapter is available online in PDF, and DOC.
With these thoughts on my mind, I was surprised to find a recent discussion of this very topic from my church’s most recent conference. At the 2008 Bethlehem Conference for Pastors, they had a panel discussion on a variety of topics. One of the questions was “What makes a doctrine essential?” John Piper and D.A. Carson did a good job discussing that question. I took the conference video (available for download), and tried to cut it down to just this question: unfortunately, during the last 2 minutes, the audio and video are a little out of sync, but not too much.
Update: I should also note that I thought Carson’s warning about “being prophetic from the margins” was similar to my contention that majoring on the minors belittles the Gospel. Also, if anyone can’t view the video online, or download the original video, they can read the transcript.
Recently we’ve been discussing whether doctrines can be secondary, or if they should all be essential. In my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation“, I argue that only fundamental doctrines are essential, and when we separate over secondary doctrines, we are belittling the Gospel.
John MacArthur agrees with me it seems. On Pulpit Live there is a 3-part series entitled “What Doctrines are Essential?” [click to read part 1, part 2, and part 3]. He helps me make my case. Stronger words and harsher warnings surround denial of cardinal doctrines. Doctrines expressly stated to be essential to one’s salvation, are thus expressly identified as fundamental.
Check out MacArthur’s posts, and then scan through the debate on my blog. Let me know if you think I’m wrong about this, or if you have further Scriptural arguments for the ranking of doctrines.
