Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part VI

Hyper-Fundamentalism - Really?

Theological Off-Roading 

The irresponsibility and divisiveness that comes out of the Neo-fundamentalism that calls itself Conservative Evangelicalism never cease to amaze me. One such irresponsible and divisive term being bantered around on the blogosphere is the term Hyper-fundamentalists. I can understand why those who are not independent Baptists use this term. They define Fundamentalism as a movement that began out of the Modernist Controversy of the early 1900’s. They define Fundamentalism as a list of cardinal doctrines. 

Fundamentalism, as a Movement, was born out of the battle against Liberalism and Liberalism’s denial of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and the cardinal doctrines of the Faith (the results of German Rationalism and Higher Criticism). However, Fundamentalism as a theology existed long before this. Independent Baptists have never limited their fundamentals to the very basic, but inclusivistic, list of cardinal doctrines that defines the Fundamentalist Movement. Therefore, in the redefining of Fundamentalism within the main stream of independent Baptist churches, this is another form of reductionism regarding what defines fundamental or New Testament Christianity. As far as what defines an independent Baptist, this is Theological Off-Roading. 

The Fundamentalist Movement has always been interdenominational and broadly more inclusivistic regarding what is tolerated theologically in the definition of true Christianity than what fundamental Baptists have ever allowed. Therefore, we must conclude that those who call themselves independent Baptists, and who are trying to redefine Fundamentalism more inclusivistically according to the list of cardinal doctrines of the Fundamentalist Movement, are really no longer fundamental Baptists. If that is the direction they want to go, so be it. As Baptists, we believe in Individual Soul Liberty. Therefore, we say Bon Voyage! However, as you leave the dock, please remove the word Baptist from the side of your ship. At least Northland International University was honest regarding this in their name change. Let me suggest that Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary consider doing the same thing. Can I get an Amen? 


In reading the little, four volume set entitled The Fundamentals issued by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917; “edited by R.A. Torrey, A.C. Dixon and Others” (later reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan), we find the articles dealing mainly with the arguments of Higher Criticism and the resulting denial of various cardinal doctrines. A basic reading of the Table of Contents on the opening pages of these four volumes should reveal to us that the unity of the authors of each of the chapters centered more on their disagreement with their opposition than it did with theological unity on many important theological arenas of discussion. 

• Volume One deals mainly with Higher Criticism 
• Volume Two deals mainly with the inspiration of the Bible and the Deity of Christ 
• Volume Three deals with Anthropology and Soteriological (the most doctrinally definitive articles are “Is Romanism Christianity?” by T.W. Medhurst and “Rome, The Antagonist of the Nation” by Rev. J.M. Foster) 
• Volume Four deals with various “modern” Philosophies and the Cults (“ISMS”)

Although most fundamental Baptists would agree with a great deal of what is written in these four volumes, they would not fellowship with the vast majority of the authors. The vast majority of the authors of the various articles in this publication are Reformed/Covenant in their theology and from diverse denominational backgrounds. This also is a defining factor of what is happening among professing Baptists trying to redefine Fundamentalism. They want to fellowship with men and churches who hold to a wide diversity of doctrines that are part of Reformed Theology. 

The great difficulty in defining Fundamentalism is due to the attempt to define a theological position with one word. However, the difficulty is in the presumption of agreement on all areas of theology. The central and uniting area of agreement within the Fundamentalist Movement has never been much more than its agreement on the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible and, perhaps, a literal interpretation of the Bible (even though interpretation is often influenced by suppositions that are imposed upon the text; i.e. eisegesis). 

There were peripheral areas of agreement on certain cardinal doctrines, but these were expected areas of agreement and even that agreement was not total. These would include such basic things as Creation as opposed to evolution (even though there was considerable diversity here such as the Gap Theory of the Scofield Reference Bible and a few who held to Theistic Evolution), the Deity of Christ and the Trinity of God (although there was considerable diversity in regards to the ministry of the Holy Spirit between the Holiness/Keswickian people, Pentecostals, and Dispensationalists), salvation/justification by grace through faith (although considerable diversity about what these terms mean between such SYSTEMS of theology such as Calvinism/Arminianism and some that practiced paedo-baptism, such as the fundamentalist Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians), and their opposition to Roman Catholicism (primarily Papalism). Conservative Evangelicalism wants to establish criteria for inclusivistic fellowship that would include the wide diversity of positions listed above. 

Therefore, the ambiguity of the term Fundamentalism that defines the Fundamentalist Movement stems from a lack of theological definitiveness regarding the fundamental doctrines of “the faith.” There was really no specific agreement on those fundamentals of the faith within the movement. I believe that the result of this was that the movement was pre-programmed to be inclusivistic. New Evangelicalism was intrinsic to the Fundamentalist Movement and, without the theological definitiveness necessary from keeping this ingrained New Evangelicalism from coming forth, every new generation of the Fundamentalist Movement gives birth to new New Evangelicals. The new New Evangelicals of our generation call themselves Young Fundamentalists or Conservative Evangelicals. 

By the very nature of the doctrinal statements of independent Baptists, they have ALWAYS been exclusivistic. Our doctrinal statements have always been more definitive regarding what defines true Christianity. Independent Baptists have always separated from those who held to aberrant views of Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, and Eschatology. In most part, independent Baptists have historically held to the inspiration and the preservation of Scripture only in the original languages and in the Traditional Greek Text and Masoretic Hebrew Text. However, now we have men who call themselves Baptists, who are redefining Fundamentalism according to the list of cardinal doctrines from the inclusivistic and interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement. 

These same men are calling independent Baptists, who continue to hold to their ancient and exclusivistic definitions of fundamental Christianity, Hyper-fundamentalists. Although they are telling us they are reclaiming authentic fundamentalism (where have I heard that phrase before), they are really telling us they are no longer independent Baptists. I say let’s listen to their message and agree with it. They are saying, WE ARE NO LONGER INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS. They have abandoned their Baptist’ militancy and have decided to join the singing of Kum-Ba-Yah around the camp fire of the more inclusivistic Fundamentalist Movement. 

In the Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, they have included what they have entitled; Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism. We might refer to this Position Statement as the Imprimatur of Conservative Evangelicalism that embodies a Reformed Position Statement regarding the purpose of the Church and especially how the methodology of preaching is to be defined (actually redefined). This is very much a major aspect of redefining Fundamentalism. As you read this statement, notice the broad-brush it paints with and the divisiveness of the statement. In this broad and sweeping statement, the vast majority of the world’s greatest preachers are repudiated in their methodology and denigrated in their motivation including the Lord Jesus Christ and all the Apostles as revealed by the Epistles. 

“Another version of Fundamentalism that we repudiate is revivalistic and decisionistic. It typically rejects expository preaching in favor of manipulative exhortation. It bases spirituality upon crisis decisions rather than steady, incremental growth in grace. By design, its worship is shallow or non-existent. Its philosophy of leadership is highly authoritarian and its theology is vitriolic in its opposition to Calvinism. While this version of Fundamentalism has always been a significant aspect of the movement, we nevertheless see it as a threat to biblical Christianity.”[1] 

First of all, the statement is false. “Revivalistic and decisionistic” Fundamentalism does not typically reject expository preaching. The statement that “revivalistic and decisionistic” preaching is nothing more than “manipulative exhortation” is an insult against every preacher who believes that true preaching of the Word of God is intent upon persuading people through the preaching of Spirit filled men. This statement is essentially a denigration of Synergism in God’s use of the human agent (Rom. 10:14-21 & II Cor. 5:11-21) in the “foolishness of preaching.” The denigration is necessary in order to establish Monergism as the standard by which all preaching is to be measured. 

I have just finished reading Dr. Tom Farrell’s new book, Preaching That Pleases God. (I highly recommend the book.) I would conclude that the vast majority of everything in Brother Farrell’s book would be denigrated by the above Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. In fact, the vast majority of what is written in about 20 other books I have in my library on Homiletics would be denigrated by this Position Statement. 

Apparently, according to Conservative Evangelicalism, if you opposed Calvinism today you are “a threat to biblical Christianity.” Therefore, we can only conclude that such a broad, sweeping statement must mean that Calvinism defines “biblical Christianity.” Apparently, this is something we are just not allowed to talk about any longer. I guess, if we are going to talk about it, we should at least not be allowed be dogmatic about it. As long as we agree to be inclusivistic and accepting, we can talk about Calvinism. This comes from the silly notion that if we talk about Calvinism, this talk will divide our fellowships and associations of churches. This is silly because it already divides our fellowships. In fact, the above Position Statement of Central Baptist Theological Seminary tells us that they are the very ones making the division and doing the dividing. 

Well, I think we should talk about it! I know a lot of Baptists who think we should talk about it. This is the Central issue (pun intended) that is defining Conservative Evangelicalism and the one point that no one is willing to talk about. Within Conservative Evangelicalism, we hear the phrase Gospel Driven Separation. In most cases, this Gospel Driven Separation is really defined as Calvinism or Calvinistic Soteriology (the reason why I say Calvinistic is because a number of these men do not want to be identified with all of Calvin’s Soteriology and certainly not with his Eschatology, Ecclesiology, or Replacement Theology). Although the first evaluation regarding a working cooperation with another local church must be an agreement upon the message of salvation and the Biblical accepted response to the Gospel in order to receive God’s gift of salvation, there are a number of equally important factors that must be considered as well. Without these other equally important areas of agreement, a Gospel Driven Separation is little more than Theological Off-Roading.  

Let me state up front; I do not believe Calvinists are evil. In fact, I have a number of friends who are Calvinistic and with whom I fellowship. I am not “vitriolic” against Calvinists. Yet in many cases, Calvinists have separated from me because I am not a Calvinist and because I oppose Calvinism as a Systematic Theology. In fact, a number of years ago, after a discussion with Dr. Dave Doran about his positions on Calvinism at the Heart Conference at the then Northland Baptist Bible College, he told me that because of our differences we would not be able to fellowship together. I would have been willing to have limited fellowship with him even with our differences. He stated his separation from me because of our differences. I do not hold that against him. It was his choice and I accept it. That same scenario has been repeated with a number of Calvinists since then. They are separating over this issue and Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Position Statement is the criterion for that separation. However, they just do not want anyone to separate from them over this issue. 

We do not need to look much further than the list of speakers at conferences like the T4G Conference 2010[2], the Ligonier 2011 National Conference[3], the Gospel Centered Church Conference[4], and Preserving the Truth Conference[5] to find our common denominator. What is the common denominator in all of these conferences? The common denominator is the Imprimatur of Conservative Evangelicalism as stated in Central Baptist Seminary’s Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism. Although this is very apparent, we are being told not to point it out or not to talk about it. Let’s talk about it! 

[1] Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, ETHOS STATEMENT ON FUNDAMENTALISM & EVANGELICALISM; 

http://centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy/241-ethos-statement-on-fundamentalism-a-evangelicalism 

[2] http://t4g.org/conference/t4g-2010/ 

[3]http://www.ligonier.org/events/2011-national-conference/speakers/ 

[4]http://www.truechurchconference.org/preachers/and http://www.truechurchconference.org/distinctives/ listing the New Hampshire Confession of Faith as their foundational doctrinal statement 

[5] http://truthconference.org/resources/ 

Anonymous comments will not be allowed. 

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part V

A New Christian Ignominy[1] 

Beware of anyone promoting Christian love above holiness. Beware also of anyone speaking of toleration without considering the appearance of any endorsement of doctrinal error. Disregard anyone purporting Christian unity apart from doctrinal unity for any such proposition is an oxymoron. 

A distinguishing attribute of God is His transcendency. The transcendency of God means that He is above, other than, and distinct from anything that He has created. In this sense God is really unknowable except through His interactions with His creatures and by His revelation to His creatures. Apart from God nothing exists or can exists. God is self-existent and anything that is other than God exists because of His existence. God is therefore unique, distinct, and separate from all that which He has created; the Cosmos. 

Another distinguishing attribute of God is His immanence. Immanence signifies that, although God is separate and distinct from His created Cosmos, He has chosen to be active and present within that Cosmos in various ways and in various levels of influence. His actions and presence within the Cosmos in no way defiles Him in that He remains separate from all sin, consequences of sin, and influences of sin while working to combat all consequences and influences of sin. The whole of the Cosmos has been cursed by God. Yet, God is immanently working within the fallen Cosmos to redeem every lost soul of humanity and purify those He redeems. This immanent work of God is what defines the word missional. 

Transcendency describes God’s separation and distinctiveness from any and every corruption while immanency describes His operations within His created Cosmos in His Missional Purpose to which He calls all believers to fellowship with Him in that Missional Purpose. Therefore, the transcendency of God and the immanency of God are to be emulated by all believers in separation from any worldly corruption of sin or false doctrine and separation to the immanency of God in syncretism with Him in His Missional Purpose. Failure in any area of separation from the corruptions of the fallen Cosmos and in any area of separation to the Missional Purpose of God defiles any individual believer or any local church from God’s immanent supernatural operations through His redeemed. It is to this vocational Missional Purpose all believers are elected (Eph. 4:1) and the unity in purpose to which all believers are called (Eph. 4:2-32) and to which they are being perfected (Eph. 4:11-12). 

“13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (I Peter 1:13-16). 

Holiness and purity are essentials to the supernatural operations of God through His redeemed human agents as they fellowship with Him in His Missional Purpose within the Cosmos. Holiness and purity must exist on the individual level before they can exist on the corporate level within a local church. Therefore separation from the sinful influences of the Cosmos and to the Missional Purpose of God within the Cosmos on the individual level and the corporate level are both equally essential to the supernatural operations of God through His redeemed human agents. It is the objective of the purity of local churches that our High Priest Jesus Christ ministers toward throughout the Church Age. This is portrayed by Christ in His seven epistles to seven local churches in Revelations chapters 2 and 3. Dr. Ernest Pickering[2] speaks to this issue: 

“. . . Certainly we cannot achieve the purity that God alone possesses, nor can we even achieve perfect purity on a relative human scale; nevertheless, our goal and objective is purity. The seven letters to the Asian churches (Rev. 2-3) indicate God’s concern for church purity. He walks among His churches with eyes as ‘a flame of fire’ (Rev. 1:14). He searches out evil and demands purity. 

Congregations are defiled by false teaching and false teachers. To allow them to continue on the plea (popularly used) that the official confessional statement of the denomination is evangelical in nature is whistling in the dark. Hymenaeus and Alexander ‘made shipwreck’ of the faith, and the apostle ‘delivered [them] to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim. 1:19, 20). Why was Paul concerned? Because such men, spreading their false teachings, defile the house of God and injure the occupants thereof. This is the effect of any denominational fellowship. 

Thus the principle goes beyond the local congregation to fellowship between congregations. How can a congregation, continually existing in cooperative, interdependent association with other congregations, many of whom are led by false teachers, hope to be pleasing to God and to maintain a witness of holiness? Our holiness is defiled by unholy associations of the type required in denominational frameworks.” 

What we see in the redefining of Biblical separation in application is a form of interdenominationalism that speaks using such terms as Table Fellowship or Coffee Fellowship, and Platform Fellowship. However, we have Scriptural instruction regarding all three of these variations of fellowship. In this interdenominationalism of the Fundamentalist Movement we see a new informal denomination being formed through mutual alliances of emphasis of commonality and de-emphasis, or ignoring of, areas of disagreement. There is an undercurrent of pragmatism in the arguments for justifying such practices. 

The arguments center on the issue of cultural relevancy, which arguments are very similar to the origins of the Moral Majority back in 1976. Because Christianity was so fractionized by denominationalism it was easily marginalized by cultural Liberalism, which had already been joined by Theological Liberalism in the early 1900’s. The Moral Majority was formed to create a consensus for political resistance against the rapidly advancing Marxist Reconstructionism (Socialism and Liberalism). 

The motive for most of those involved in the Moral Majority was undoubtedly Theonomic in nature, because few of those involved would have been considered Fundamentalists or Dispensationalists. Most of those involved were seeking to usher in a utopian kingdom on earth through political activism thereby creating a Theonomy. The few true Evangelicals within the Moral Majority soon discovered that they had created a them and us division in the populace with them lined up against us. The result was that the very people the Evangelicals sought to win to Christ now saw these Evangelicals as adversaries and the message of the gospel was never allowed beyond the dividing front lines of their political warfare. Thereby Evangelicalism cut its own Missional throat. The view of Evangelical Christianity was greatly marred by this unscriptural alliance and from that point forward in time all Evangelicals and Christian political activists have been viewed adversarially merely as the Religious Right. 

The Moral Majority was led by Jerry Falwell and the vast majority of the rest of the leadership were constituents of Falwell from within the Baptist Bible Fellowship. Falwell insisted that leadership positions also be given to Catholics and Jews. The Moral Majority was disbanded in 1989. However, Dr. Jerry Falwell had become an Ecumenicist (if he was not already there) and the Baptist Bible Fellowship was in a serious state of decay experiencing a rapid exodus of fellowshipping pastors along with the support of corresponding local churches. 

Out of this dunghill of destruction created by the formation of the Moral Majority and the failure of Evangelical Christians to practice separation arose two new attempts to correct the Missional atrocities and cultural barricades to the Gospel created by the compromises of the Moral Majority. These two new movements have come to be known as the Emergent Church and Conservative Evangelicalism. Although they are radically different in their philosophies of ministry, they are also similar in other very damaging ways. The similarity is in the way they commingle doctrinal differences. The Emergent Church simply relegates all doctrinal difference into obscurity by marginalizing doctrine to the extreme. Conservative Evangelicalism minimalizes certain doctrines that they see as nonessentials in order to formulate a unity in devotion with unity in doctrine only in the areas that they view as essentials. 

All of this creates an ecclesiastical convolution.[3] There is such lack of clarity in this whole discussion regarding redefining practices in separation interdenominationally that it creates all kinds of confusions and simply raises more questions. It erases the lines of demarcation from Truth and distorts theological distinctions in ways we could never have imagined. Douglas McLachlan makes the following statement regarding this convolution of confusion[4]: 

“But if the first form of Biblical separation is to be found at a personal level, the second form is to be found at an ecclesiastical level. I define ecclesiastical separation as follows: Radical non-conformity to Babel; resolute conformity to the faith, i.e., the body of truth revealed in Scripture. 

What does ‘Babel’ have to do with the matter of separation on an ecclesiastical level? Babel in Genesis 11 represents the formal institution of ‘the mystery of iniquity,’ the religion of Satan and Antichrist. Thereafter, throughout all the Scripture, Babylon becomes the code word for satanic religion, whatever form it takes. This would include liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, the Eastern religions, which are being popularized in the avalanche of New Age propaganda which has flooded our culture, all forms of the occult, cultists, false prophets, apostasy and unbelief in all of its forms. 

The very word ‘babel’ (Genesis 11:9) comes from a Hebrew verb (balal) which means ‘to pour together or mingle together,’ with the result that confusion is forth-coming. Theologically, ‘babel’ means the distortion and perversion of truth by mixing or mingling it with error. On a linguistic basis in Genesis 11 it meant the end of unadulterated language. On a theological basis in both the ancient and modern world it means the end of unadulterated truth. The real subtlety of ‘babel’ is that it always has a trace of truth in what it says. 

This is why authentic fundamentalists have always felt the necessity to be Biblical separatists. They have never felt the liberty to knowingly pour truth and error together, and the only alternative available to them was to separate the truth from error. That is what we call ‘ecclesiastical separation.’” 

What Dr. McLachlan says here is certainly the way separation has been practiced by Baptists, at least in my life time and 200 plus years of American Baptist history. Anything less creates a convolution of confusion. Never before has this separation been limited to soteriological issues. It may have begun with the Gospel, but it certainly extended into every other division of theology as well. In many cases those creating this convolution of confusion are not even true to their primary unity regarding the Gospel, because there is a wide diversity of positions in even this area of theology including soteriological reductionism on various levels, Lordship salvation, disagreement regarding the necessity of repentance for salvation, Monergism, and etc, etc.. 

The interdenominationalism of Neo-fundamentalism within the Fundamentalist Movement seeks to remove the doctrinal distinctives that create barriers (separations) between denominations or sects. Sectarianism (“heresy”) is condemned in Scripture. Conservative Evangelicals seek to remove the doctrinal distinctives that create barriers (separations) between other professed Evangelicals. We know Sectarianism today by the term Denominationalism. By the very nature of the word “heresy,” it is a departure from “the faith” in such a way as to form a new Sect. Within these various Sects there are often further divisions creating additional Sects within Sects. How many sects of Lutherans do we have today? How many sects of Baptists do we have today? How many sects of Presbyterians do we have today? Interestingly every sect thinks that they are the Biblical norm of orthodoxy that defines New Testament Christianity. In almost every case before the rise of New Evangelicalism, it was those departing from the main body of a denomination due to the main body’s departure from orthodoxy. With Neo-orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Neo-fundamentalism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the Emergent Church, these all were/are departures from the main body of orthodox evangelicalism. Conservative Evangelicalism seeks to restore a unity in evangelical purpose within the interdenominationalism of the Fundamentalist Movement by simply ignoring the numerous and growing number of doctrinal diversities. This cannot happen if we enter the requirements of being unified with the Godhead in His immanency and Missional Purpose through syncretism with His human agents (Eph. 4:1-32). 

Obviously, every one of these sects cannot be the Biblical norm of orthodoxy that defines New Testament Christianity. Obviously some, if not most of these sects, must be abnormal in their theological distinctives in one way or another. If each of these sects were true to their positions, they would abhor interdenominationalism and label it for its compromising nature. They do not do that. So in varying degrees of Ecumenicism they draw back into various degrees of fellowship/cooperation with one another. The hypocrisy is that they continue to maintain their individuality rather than merge their churches together in any locality. How can this so called interdenominational fellowship exist when there is a wide variance in what each deems to be “the faith”? 

This pseudo-fellowship exists because love is emphasized above holiness. This compromise creates a pseudo-love. This pseudo-love is defined practically in varying degrees and levels of application by the word TOLERANCE. This new fellowship application is not Biblical fellowship at all. Even in the comments of those promoting this new fellowship application it is apparent that it is nothing more than tolerance with no real fellowship taking place. If Truth is compromised to create some kind of artificial unity it also creates a pseudo-love. This is like cough syrup without the cough medicine. It is just syrup. There is a sickening sweetness to it that offers no real hope for a cure. There is no practical synergism of “the work of the ministry” created except in appearances. The appearances are damaging because there is no disclaimer attached. It is a “trumpet” giving an “uncertain sound.” (I Cor. 14:8). God is not the “author of confusion” and this application of fellowship is confusing convolution. It exalts love or graciousness above Truth. It promotes unity around devotion to Christ above unity in the teachings (doctrines) of Christ. 

In 1979 Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: 

“The holiness of God is that attribute which governs the exercise of all other attributes. God cannot do anything that would sully His holy character. It is extremely important to recognize the preeminence of God’s holiness. ‘Holiness occupies the first rank among the attributes of God.[5]’ Bancroft declares, ‘God’s holiness is His most exalted and emphasized attribute, expressing the majesty of His moral nature and character.[6]’ 

Many tend to emphasize the love of God in preference to His holiness. While they may accept the fact of His holiness, they see Him exercising His holiness in love rather than His love in holiness. This is a tendency not only among liberals but among evangelicals as well. They see God as softhearted and accommodating. The relationship between God’s holiness and His love must ever be kept in proper perspective.[7]” (bolding added) 

Dr. Pickering[8] then goes on to quote Augustus H. Strong: 

“That which lays down the norm or standard for love must be the superior of love. When we forget that ‘righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne’ (Ps. 97:2), we lose one of the chief landmarks of Christian doctrine and involve ourselves in a mist of error.[9]” 

In the next paragraph Pickering[10] states: 

“The question bears upon the subject at hand in this fashion. In the controversy between apostates and fundamentalists within a denomination, which should be the guiding principle for action – holiness or love? Should the emphasis be upon maintaining unity within the body (a so-called demonstration of love) or should it be upon either purifying the body from within or establishing a pure testimony by going without (a concern for holiness)? This is a watershed between Inclusivists and separatists. Inclusivists tend to emphasize love (we speak now of emphasis); separatists tend to emphasize purity or holiness. Why? Because separatists believe that a governing attribute of God is His holiness. Well not speaking as a separatist, Strong well states that ‘holy love is love controlled by holiness . . . . Love cannot direct itself; it is under bonds to holiness.’” 

This leads us to the issue of identification with those holding to false doctrine in a conciliatory cooperation when doctrinal unity does not exist except at very basic levels. Usually a number of conciliations have to be made between parties even to achieve a basic level of cooperation such as Platform Fellowship. However, the problem comes when individuals in spiritual leadership positions are looked to as authority figures and, as authority figures, give an endorsement of error by association. This identification then gives permission to those who are not discerning to take the association to full fellowship because Dr. so and so did it. These kinds of identifications and associations are very dangerous to those that the Word of God refers to as the “simple.” These kinds of associations (using this word to distinguish something different than true fellowship) are not wise in that they have a high potential for leading ignorant people astray. 

“1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; 2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; 3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; 4 To give subtilty {precaution} to the simple {the foolish or easily seduced person}, to the young man knowledge and discretion .5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings” (Proverbs 1:1-4). 

Perhaps those involved in these duplicities and who call themselves Conservative Evangelicalism and the Emergent Church (for these are different degrees of the same error) have forgotten the horrors of allowing a mixed multitude to cohabitate together. 

“37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:37-38). 

Out of the influence of this mixed multitude came the influence to worship Jehovah in the form of a golden Calf and in the sexually licentious worship practices of the paganism of Egypt. It was this mixed multitude that was the source of most of the murmuring and complaining against God and Moses in the wilderness. It was the influence of this mixed multitude that influenced the children of Israel to make a decision of unbelief at Kadesh-Barnea that failed to enter the factor of God’s presence into the equation of conquering the Promised Land. God would spend the next 38 years purging out the mixed multitude. In the light of all of this, are wrong beliefs that lead to the commingling of orthodoxy with heterodoxy any different than unbelief? 

[1] ig·no·min·y. pl ig·no·min·ies; 1. Great personal dishonor or humiliation; 2. Shameful or disgraceful action, conduct, or character. 

[2] Pickering, Earnest D.; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, Illinois, 4th Printing 1983, pgs. 167-168 

[3] a form or shape that is folded in curved or tortuous windings; something that is very complicated and difficult to understand 

[4] Douglas R. McLachlan; Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, American Association of Christian Schools, Independence, Missouri, 1993; pgs 125-126 

[5] Quoted from H.C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), pg. 129 

[6] Quoted from Emery Bancroft, Elemental Theology, ed. Ronald Mayers (Grand Rapids: Zondervon Publishing House, 1977), p.89 

[7] Ernest Pickering; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church; Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, ILL, 4th Printing 1983, pgs. 165-166 

[8]Ibid., pg. 166 

[9] Quoted from Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (New York: Fleming Revell, 1907), p. 272 

[10] Ernest Pickering; Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church; Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, ILL, 4th Printing 1983, pg. 166 

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:

http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part IV

 An Interdenominational Amalgamation

ORTHODOXY ≠ ORTHOPRAXY = HETERODOXY

Conservative Evangelicalism is like the Curate’s egg.  This British term dates from an 1895 Punch cartoon in which a deferential, diplomatic curate (a person serving under the superintendence of a Bishop who is entrusted with the care or cure of the souls of a parish church), unwilling to acknowledge before his bishop that he had been served a bad egg, insisted that “Parts of it are excellent!”[1]  This is why I refer to Conservative Evangelicalism (Young Fundamentalism) as an amalgamation.  Like the Curate’s egg, it is an amalgam of good and bad features; of assets and liabilities, of strengths and weaknesses, and of pros and cons.  Those promoting Conservative Evangelicalism, or defending it, are very much like the Curate mentioned in the illustration.  

A consolidation is the union of two different entities or organizations into a new entity or organization at which time the original constituent entities or organizations cease to exist.  A merger is when one entity or organization absorbs another entity or organization.  An amalgamation is used to designate the outcome of a consolidation or merger[2].  An amalgamation may or may not come into existence without changing the original purpose statement of the merged or consolidated entities or organizations if the original purpose statements of those entities or organizations are the same.  However, that is seldom the case.  Usually there are varying degrees of compromise and change as the outcome of the amalgamation.  

Conservative Evangelicalism is an amalgamation of New Evangelicalism and compromising Fundamentalism to formulate a pseudo-unity around a redefinition of how separation is to be applied in real life situations and within interdenominationalism.  As soon as separatist Baptists enter into this dialogue (dialogue is not mere discussion of issues, but is another word for Diaprax[3]), they cease to be separatist Baptists because they begin to cooperate within interdenominationalism thereby minimalizing or sacrificing their doctrinal distinctives.

I would not drink muddy water unless I was dying of thirst.  I have a pretty good idea what is in muddy water.  However, I would be more concerned about drinking water that I am not sure what might be in it or that I suspect has been purposely or haphazardly contaminated.  That is my great concern with the New Neo-evangelicalism called Conservative Evangelicalism or Neo-fundamentalism.  I really do not know what is in it, but I highly suspect it is contaminated with things not good for me spiritually and to which God does not approve.  I certainly believe it is contaminated enough for me to warn others about it and to separate from those within it.  

Some of this discussion regarding redefining separation is being done by men I have counted as friends and have respected.  After listening to their discussions for about two years now, it seems to me they are a little like the guy who drove far too fast into his garage and is trying to back out slowly to avoid all the destruction and carnage created by his original haste.  They entered into the discussion critical of what they viewed as extremes in separation (and some areas are extreme in my opinion), but ended up driving that discussion to another extreme and through the back wall of the garage.  The automatic door closure of the Old Guard has begun to close the garage door on them locking them in with the carnage they have already created.  The more they try to move around in their havoc, the more carnage they create.  This is what Rationalism always does.  

This discussion is being driven by leadership in what historically have been separatist Baptist higher education institutions.  I would say this is unique, but of course it is not.  It is merely a repeat of history in the praxis of the Hegelian Dialectic within theological dialogue.  The dynamic of the Hegelian Dialectic in this dialogue takes place within the academic institutions when diverse theological positions are allowed to enter into public debate.  The outcome is always that the majority of the hearers/listeners to the discussion are moved (or manipulated) to land theologically somewhere in the middle of the diverse positions being postulated.  In the continuation of this discussion over a lengthy period of time, the middle or center is constantly evolving and changing.  The more diverse the positions in the theological dialogue, the more the center moves.  All during the discussion we hear the leadership of these educational institutions proclaim that their theological positions have not changed and that they are merely discussing or re-evaluating the application of those positions.  This is the historical pattern in the moving of orthodoxy to heterodoxy by redefining orthopraxy.  In other words, the position of the institution does not change, just the practice.  THIS IS DOUBLESPEAK!

“Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.  Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., ‘downsizing’ for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature.  It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war ‘peace’).  In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.”[4]

Things that are different are not the same. That is a Praxis Grammatica. However, things that are similar are not the same either. In theological dialogue, the emphasis is taken away from the things that are different and placed upon the things that are the same thereby creating an aberration to which God vehemently condemns by numerous metaphorical examples; “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19).

This theological discussion regarding separation is no new discussion. Many [5] before me have adequately laid these principles before us. Why then do they need to be restated? Simply, because there are those that are seeking to broaden and redefine the application of these principles. Usually when people seek to redefine truth, these Old Path issues need to be refined in their definitions and applications. Sadly this redefining is being presented as refining with an outcome that looks radically different than the Old Paths. They may be saying they are not abandoning the Old Paths. However, they are surely moving the road signage around considerably. The redefining of orthopraxy while promising not to change orthodoxy is heterodox doublespeak. Those listening to this kind of discussion should regularly evaluate if the ground they stand upon is still theologically and exegetically solid because there are no shifting sands in the realm of Absolute Truth. This should be of special concern if the vast majority of the discussion is absent of any real exegesis. If you find yourself standing on shifting theological sands, be sure it is not quicksand.

Practice (orthopraxy) does not define position (orthodoxy), but rather practice (orthopraxy) is determined by position (orthodoxy). To reverse this priory is heterodoxy. I am sure that there will be those in the discussion who will object to me even raising this point in that they would agree that it is a true statement. However, they would vehemently disagree that they are not defining their position by their practice when to any intelligent onlooker that is exactly what they are doing. Just as position is defined exegetically (Eph. chapters 1 through 3), practice is defined exegetically out from an already established exegetical position (Eph. chapters 4 through 6).

The exegesis of the commands of Leviticus 19:19 has been a major contributor in establishing the theological precedent for the doctrine and practice of Biblical separation. The three commands address the practice while the exegesis of the text discovers the position or the why of the commands. Uniquely, the commands regarding practice are focused upon the aberrations that the amalgamations of the three categories produce. The commands are to insure that the aberrant amalgamations are never produced in that the amalgamations gender extended aberrations. The three commands are collectively referred to in the Mishnah and Talmud by the Hebrew word Kil'ayim. The term literally means a mixture, but more than likely refers to the confusion that the forbidden mixture generates. The principle is that no one should commingle that which God has supernaturally separated in creation.

“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”

The word “cattle” is a general term for livestock or any species of large, four-legged dumb beasts. The word “gender” merely means to lie down together. The implication is that of breeding. The command is against breeding animals of different species together thereby creating an aberration of species like a mule from the crossbreeding of a horse and an ass/donkey. In almost every case of such crossbreeding, the aberration produced is sterile or impotent. The critical point in this application is when it is applied to spiritual power and evangelism when theological compromise produces some aberration that is inconsistent with doctrinal positions.

An essential point of reproduction is found in the very first chapters of Genesis; “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Genesis 1:11; see also 12, 21, 24, 25; 6:20; 7:14). In this application of separation, failure to obey the command creates an aberration that is impotent spiritually in power with God.

Perhaps this is why the modern Church Growth Movement must attempt to manufacture growth through adoption and assimilation of converts and through the seduction of the mixed-multitude rather than make their own converts. They have to steal sheep because they are impotent to produce their own. Someone has rightly said that most local churches today are simply being maintained (status quo) by a pacifist leadership that never fought the fights or made the sacrifices that built the churches of which they are now in leadership. Someone else built the flock that feeds them and they simply want to insure that the sheep and goats keep coming to the barn to give wool and milk.

“Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed”

Again, failure to obey this command creates an aberration in amalgamation. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary [6] deals well with the doctrinal intent of this text.

“ . . . those who have studied the diseases of land and vegetables tell us, that the practice of mingling seeds is injurious both to flowers and to grains. ‘If the various genera of the natural order Gramineæ, which includes the grains and the grasses, should be sown in the same field, and flower at the same time, so that the pollen of the two flowers mix, a spurious seed will be the consequence, called by the farmers chess. It is always inferior and unlike either of the two grains that produced it, in size, flavor, and nutritious principles. Independently of contributing to disease the soil, they never fail to produce the same in animals and men that feed on them’ [WHITLAW].”

Richard V. Clearwaters [7] makes an interesting comment on the theological ramifications of mixed seed theology:

“An ecclesiastical label does not prove one a prophet of Christ. Jeremiah and Hananiah were both ministers of the same day, and addressed themselves to the same people; but they represented mixed seeds, in the prophetic world the one God-sent and the other self-commissioned; one inspired of the Holy Spirit, the other aspiring to political popularity. . . When mixed seeds are sown together, separation becomes impossible.”

Dr. Clearwaters goes on to say:

“It is so difficult to discern between wheat and darnel (the thing we call ‘cheat’ in this country) that men from time to time have been deceived into supposing that they were the same, and some have claimed darnel was merely degenerate wheat! But it is scientifically certain that such is not the case; they are different species. Cheat is not a variety of wheat at all.”

Mixed seed theology has created an aberrant amalgamation of theological “cheat,” especially in the paradox of interdenominational fellowship in the breach of God’s separation commandments. Critical to the discussion regarding the application of separation is the obvious differences between separation among fundamental Baptists and other species of Christianity and the separation of the interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement. It is within this dialogue in this new kind of interdenominationalism that the waters are being muddied by educational institutions that were once solidly Baptists and who are now merely becoming baptistic (i.e., similar, but different than Baptists).

This interdenominationalism can certainly be traced to a faulty Ecclesiology. The manner sought to correct this faulty Ecclesiology was the creation of a more definitive denominationalism among Fundamentalists through local church conventions, associations, and fellowships such as the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.; now International), Bible Baptist Fellowship (B.B.F.I.), Baptist General Conference (B.G.C.) General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (G.A.R.B.C), North American Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist Convention, & ad infinitum; these in themselves merely generated a different faulty Ecclesiology.

It is within the ever broadening dynamic of commingled seed in interdenominationalism that the praxis of Biblical separation becomes untenable. This all hinges on our Ecclesiology and what defines the common nomenclature of like precious faith. This then extends to unity in purpose in the practicum of evangelism in the three phase commandment of Christ in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Until the orthodoxy of these three phases of the Great Commission is defined, there can be no agreement upon unity in praxis regarding how this is to be accomplished. Therefore, separation must focus both upon the purity of the gospel and the purity of the local church. People cannot be saved through the preaching of a corrupted Gospel and those that are genuinely saved cannot be discipled through a corrupted discipleship process. A Biblical discipleship process begins with the proper understanding of both the purpose and mode of the ordinance of water baptism in the uniting of that believer to God’s official organism for that discipleship process; the LOCAL CHURCH! Therefore, separation is centrally focused upon maintaining the purity of the local church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” Yes, the purity of the Gospel must be maintained as a primary emphasis as it is the foundation of all true conversion, but purity of “the faith” must also be maintained as it is the foundation of all true discipleship.

There is a confusion of “seed” in trying to maintain either the purity of the gospel or the purity of the local church when we have a faulty Ecclesiology that defines the Church interdenominationally as a general term referring to all Christianity. I believe it is from a faulty interdenominational Ecclesiology that this discussion regarding the application of separation finds its source of adulteration.

“[8]A true New Testament witness will always deny ‘Apostolic succession’ of individuals and will always affirm ‘Apostolic succession’ of the institution of the local church. Jesus said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ (Matt. 16:18).”

Therefore the praxis of separation must begin with a pure Ecclesiology that BEGINS with the local church as opposed to some invisible, intangible, non-entity that has never assembled and has no formal membership accountable to one another in any real way. This latter is just impractical theological nonsense (heteropraxy). How can anyone make practical sense out of separation when they begin with Ecclesiological nonsense? Anything less is an aberrant amalgamation of commingled seed. This aberrant amalgamation is the outcome of dialogue between people holding aberrant views of Ecclesiology. Aberrations can only produce different verities of aberrations. That is the practical essence in the command of the metaphor against commingled seeds.

“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee”

Although there are many explanations of why God makes this command, and most of them are tenable, understanding the application by interpreting Scripture with Scripture will get us the best results. “Woollen” garments were common wear. “Fine twined linen” and linen for priestly garments was sacred fabric. Although Jews could wear either linen garments or woolen garments in their daily routine, they were not to commingle the two. One of the reasons why purity of linen was commanded was simply that the production of body impurities (sweat) during work is increased when these two yarns are commingled. Linen was a refined yarn while woolen fabric was often rough and course. That which is forbidden is the commingling of the refined with the rough and course thereby portraying confusion in purpose or work. The refined should not be commingled with the unrefined. The sacred should not be commingled with the common. That which is sanctified should not be commingled with that which is unsanctified.

“17 And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. 18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat” Ezekiel 44:17-18).

Ezekiel 44:17-18 is for the Levites when they serve in the Millennial Kingdom Temple. We notice that they are not merely forbidden to wear fabric made from commingled yarns, but they are forbidden to wear commingled fabrics. Clearly the idea is intent upon avoiding confusion between the sacred and the common, between God’s norm and the abnorm. Perhaps in a similar text we can better see that the emphasis of this command about carefully avoiding confusing appearances. Here the issue is primarily that of identification. How we dress and who we associate with gives us identification. It can give a false identification. We need to be extremely careful about identification in our associations lest we give an improper endorsement or condone some error by that association. Although Deuteronomy 22:5 may seem like a departure from the threefold variations defining the principles behind practical separation, it is not. This is merely an extension of these same principles. 

“5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. . . 9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts {various kinds or blends}, as of {like} woollen and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:5 & 9-11).

The phrase “pertaineth unto a man” is critical to the application of the text. The word “pertaineth” is from the Hebrew word k@liy (kel-ee'), meaning the prepared apparatus or armor of warfare. The word “man” in this text is from the Hebrew word geber (gheh'-ber), which refers specifically to a valiant man or warrior. The text refers more to dressing women in men’s armor and with armaments, as was done in many of the pagan nations and religions, rather than an application to cross-dressing. Men and women were not distinguished so much by the clothing they wore, for their clothing was very similar. Yet, there is an application to gender confusion or gender role confusion. Certainly the second part of Deuteronomy 22:5, “neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment,” refers to men wearing feminine garb creating a gender confusion or gender permutation. Just like the commands against cross breeding different species of cattle, and the cross pollination in sowing together different grain seeds are to avoid the aberrations of permutations in these areas of God’s creation, there should be care taken in appearances in gender confusion, especially regarding sexuality, in order to avoid gender permutation that might lead to homosexuality or other cross-gender permutations. This then leads to the question, does what we are determine the way we think or does the way we think determine what we become? Can the way we think change the chemistry within our brains? Therefore, the subject of the command is intended to avoid the outcomes in gender confusion, which is permutation in sexuality.

The central way to distinguish between men and women was the hair on their heads. Mainly, men had long, unpolled beards and women had hairless faces. Men had polled hair, or hair cut short, while women never cut their hair. It was a disgrace for Jewish woman to have short hair (I Cor. 11:1-1). Pagan men polled their beards and shaved their heads. Both of these practices were forbidden to the Jews (Ezekiel 44:20). Pagans regularly confused gender roles in sexuality in their licentious worship practices thereby creating permutations in sexuality.

If we were to apply this to modern day culture, it would apply more to men with long hair who shave their faces than it does to women wearing pants. It would apply to women who cut their hair short and/or who dress in combat garb, or go into combat, in the confusion of gender roles. The application is appearances that confuse. Therefore, there is a mere appearance aspect in the command, but the focus is more upon the outcome that such confusion in appearance creates. This is true in the area of both personal and ecclesiastical separation as well.

The vast majority of the discussion regarding the application of separation is nothing more than Theological diaprax [9] intent upon formulating a majority consensus and then governing according to that consensus. The Latin proverb Vox populi, vox Dei (the voice of the people/majority is the voice of God) is certainly the impetus of that which calls itself Democracy, but it is also seldom true. However, be forewarned, diaprax almost always is a method of deception in the manipulation of the masses through dialogue. The confusion of the application of Biblical separation creates a permutation of practical Christianity. Any permutation of practical Christianity creates pseudo-Christianity because the word Christianity is more descriptive of orthopraxy than anything else. The word Christianity is more descriptive of our practical sanctification in our supernatural connection to the Christ-life through the filling of the Holy Spirit than it is descriptive of our filial connection “by grace through faith.”

What then is the message of God to those rethinking the applications of separation and who thereby are creating a permutation of Christianity? First of all, don’t think out loud. Don’t generate your theology through internet diaprax. And finally, once you take into consideration that all these new things you are discussing are just a new discussion with the same old arguments, admit you have been chasing the wrong rabbit. If you are part of educational institutions that fear cultural obscurity and fear that your voice is not being heard by your theological academic pears, maybe you should just recognize they are not your peers after all. If you are part of an educational institution that is seeking to broaden its enrollment base in order to increase its impact upon other species of so called Evangelical Christianity, you should probably take heed to the old proverb; He who chases two rabbits at the same time will never catch either! God’s solution is simple; return to the Old Paths of the “narrow way.”

“12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: 13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil” (Joel 2:12-13).

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg

[2] Justice Rodney on Kemos, Inc. v Bader, 545 f.2d 913 (1977), http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/Amalgamation.aspx

[3] Diaprax it is simply another word for the Hegelian Dialectic or consensus process

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

[5] Clearwaters, Richard V., The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Central Seminary Press, MPLS, MN

Cook, Arnold L., Historical Drift: Must My Church Die?; Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

Dollar, George W., A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC

Pickering, Earnest D.:

1.       Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, Illinois, 4^th Printing 1983

2.       The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC

Teachout, Raymond L., Breaking Down the Walls . . .and the Gospel: The Subversive Work of “Evangelical Inclusivism”, EBPA, Canada, 2^nd Printing

[6] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, SwordSearcher Software 4.8

[7] Clearwaters, Richard V., The Great Conservative Baptist Compromise, Central Seminary Press, MPLS, MN, page 70

[8] Richard V. Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament, Central Press, Mpls, MN, Forward, pg 1

[9] Diaprax it is simply another word for the Hegelian Dialectic or consensus process

Anonymous comments will not be allowed. 

Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/ 

Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist. 

He has served the Lord for over 40 years.

Dealing with Conservative Evangelicalism Part III

Illusion: Replacing Unity in Doctrine with Unity in Devotion

Inclusivism comes in many forms and degrees. However the subtle shift in Conservative Evangelism’s issues in separation seems to me to be based upon the same problem we saw originally in the early development of New Evangelicalism and which has now moved most of New Evangelicals into varying degrees of Emergent Church philosophy. This is the desire for cultural relevancy. This desire for cultural relevancy is carried forward by a deeper undercurrent of philosophy that I believe is even more subtle. This undercurrent is the erroneous basis for Christian fellowship through unity in devotion rather than unity in doctrine. I believe this undercurrent is also the practical foundation of the pseudo-unity of Conservative Evangelicalism. Unity in devotion is really non-definitive for devotion becomes ambiguous if what devotion is centered upon is not defined doctrinally. Perhaps this ambiguity is the very essence of the Fundamentalist Movement, New Evangelicalism, and now Conservative Evangelicalism. This is contrasted with fundamental Christianity (New Testament Christianity) that is doctrinally definitive and intent upon removing this ambiguity. Certainly this is the substance of all the New Covenant epistles.

These varying degrees of this doctrinal ambiguity led to various denominations (heresies or sects) within Christianity. Therefore, the promotion of unity in devotion over unity in doctrine is essentially interdenominational. This is the essence of various levels of Ecumenicism within Evangelical Christianity. We must then understand that this cooperation within this new interdenominationalism is really nothing more than various heresies agreeing to ignore their doctrinal differences in order to cooperate based upon some ambiguous unity in devotion. Of course, there is nothing definitive in the purpose of this pseudo-unity or what the outcome of this pseudo-unity might accomplish.

As I listen to the arguments being postulated in order to justify a departure from fundamental Christianity, or more appropriately to redefine what fundamental Christianity really is, it would appear that doctrinal inconsistencies among the constituency of Conservative Evangelicals (Young Fundamentalist) is really not important to them. What seems to be important to them is that they believe that they are formulating a new historical paradigm of interdenominationalism that will return Evangelical Christianity to cultural relevancy. My simple response to this postulation is: GET REAL!

What has been the history of the inclusivistic philosophy of unity in devotion within New Evangelicalism? The history of unity in devotion within New Evangelicalism has been an ever broadening Inclusivism. This is really just another form of Positivism. This Positivism of New Evangelicalism manifests itself in two forms of unscriptural acceptance: being TOLERANT and NON-JUDGEMENTAL. The word of God condemns both of these two compromising vices of pseudo-spirituality. Billy Graham became the spokesperson for this unity in devotion in its opposition to unity in doctrine.

“I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders, people far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition; has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction” (Billy Graham, “I Can’t Play God Any More,” McCall’s magazine, Jan. 1978).

“I’m not a charismatic. However, I don’t feel it’s my calling to shoot great volleys of theological artillery at my charismatic brothers and sisters. . . More than ever we need grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind: Life beyond the letter of Scripture. . . absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing” (Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening, pp. 188, 233).

“At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an institution of ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or.’ We seek to be both Evangelical and ecumenical. . .” (David Allan Hubbard, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Christianity Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).

Notice the terminology that we find common between the unity in devotion philosophy of the ever increasing Inclusivism of New Evangelicalism and the lanquage of the Conservative Evangelicals (New Neo-evangelicals):

1. “tolerant of other kinds of Christians,” Graham; let me translate, “tolerant of divisive heresies”

2. “Life beyond the letter of Scripture . . . absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing,” Swindoll; let me translate, “Christian life beyond doctrinal unity by abrogating doctrinal dogmatism”

3. “characterized by balance in . . . ‘both-and’ rather than ‘either-or,’” Hubbard; let me translate, “characterized by theological Centrism rather than divisive theological dogmatism”

Harold Ockenga is reputed to be the man that coined the term New Evangelical. He defined it further in his forward to the book The Battle for the Bible by Dr. Harold Lindsell.

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. . . . It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”

There exists some major contradictions in his statement; “While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory.” The “theological view” of Fundamentalism CANNOT be separated from Biblical separation from apostasy or from Fundamentalism’s “social theory.” Fundamentalism did not invent these two commands. Yet, these two commands are part of what defines a Fundamentalist. To repudiate either of these Biblical commands is to reject both Biblical absolutism (dogmatism) and the “theological view of fundamentalism.” Notice the clear demarcation from Biblical commands in four areas.

• Repudiation of Biblical ecclesiology (local churches are exchanged for the Universal Church; “body of Christ”). This distortion demands unity within Christendom. It demands unity among various local churches and denominations, rather than within the formal membership of a local church (Ephesians 4:1-7).

• Repudiation of fundamentalism’s “social theory” (i.e., evangelism/discipleship is God’s intended methodology to change any society or culture)

• Repudiation of Biblical ecclesiastical separatism (from apostasy and apostates) to gender theological dialogue

• Adaptation of the “social gospel” and political activism as means to impact cultures and societies

It has been said that New Evangelicalism is the bastard child produced by a union between ecumenical Liberalism and compromising Evangelicalism. If that is true, and I believe that it is, Conservative Evangelicalism is the bastard child of the union of compromising Evangelicalism, known as New Evangelicalism, with compromising Fundamentalism from within the interdenominational Fundamentalist Movement. This is nothing more than New Neo-evangelicalism.

Anonymous comments will not be allowed.Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at:http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.He has served the Lord for over 40 years.